SEFAZ RJ: Certidão Negativa de Débitos, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| cpf | No | ||
| cnpj | No |
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?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description usefully discloses that the operation requires prepaid credits, needs no platform credentials, queries only citizen-available non-confidential sources, and imposes LGPD-related controller responsibilities on the client. This is substantive and consistent with the annotations.
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 relatively short and front-loaded with the core function, followed by concise and relevant operational/legal context. Each sentence contributes meaningful information, though the LGPD caveat could be considered slightly beyond invocation-critical detail.
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?
The description provides enough context to understand the tool's business/access model, but it leaves key invocation semantics unanswered: which parameter to pass, whether the query is always valid, and what the returned certificate object looks like. Given there is no output schema, the description is only minimally complete.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage and the description never clarifies whether cpf or cnpj is required, whether both may be used, or how they should be formatted. The property names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.
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 explicitly names the resource and action: 'Certidão Negativa de Débitos, consulta em fonte oficial' for SEFAZ RJ. It clearly differentiates the tool from the generic sibling utilities like authenticate, connect, and report_bug.
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 implies the tool is used to query official SEFAZ RJ debt certificates with prepaid credits and no platform credentials, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or specify parameter selection conditions.
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.