SEFAZ PA: NFC-e, consulta em fonte oficial. Hospedado pela plataforma, sem credenciais da plataforma, pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago. Consulta informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros (a mesma disponível ao cidadão), não é dado sigiloso. O cliente é o controlador dos dados e responde pela finalidade legítima (LGPD).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nfce | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: no platform credentials needed, pay-per-query with prepaid credit, and that the client is the data controller under LGPD. This goes beyond the annotation basics and clarifies operational and legal behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the purpose and packs useful info about hosting, payment, and LGPD into a few sentences. It is somewhat dense but every sentence carries distinct information, with no waste or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter query tool, the description covers purpose, payment, and data responsibility. However, with no output schema, it does not describe what the response contains, potential error cases, or any usage limits. It is adequate for a simple lookup but leaves room for the agent to guess on return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'nfce' parameter beyond the tool name. It mentions NFC-e as the subject but does not say the parameter is the NFC-e key/access key or provide any format or example. The agent must infer the meaning from the tool name alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'SEFAZ PA: NFC-e, consulta em fonte oficial', specifying both the resource (NFC-e via SEFAZ PA) and the action (consulta/query). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace by focusing on the official tax document consultation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use the tool: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, and payment is per consultation with prepaid credit. It also notes the data is non-confidential and subject to LGPD responsibilities, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.