SEFAZ RN: NFC-e Resumida, 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 provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful context: pay-per-query with prepaid credit, no platform credentials, and the note that the data is public/non-confidential and the client is responsible under LGPD. This goes beyond what annotations state.
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 front-loads the main purpose clearly but then includes several trailing clauses about hosting, credentials, billing, LGPD, and data control. These are relevant context but are packed densely, making the description less scannable than needed.
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?
With no output schema and a sparse parameter schema, the description should cover what the tool returns or how the input key works. It instead focuses on contractual and payment details. It gives a rough sense that the tool returns a summary, but not enough for an agent to correctly prepare the request or interpret the result.
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 input schema has one parameter, 'nfce', with no schema description, and schema_description_coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'NFC-e Resumida' but never explains what string the parameter expects (e.g., access key, protocol, formatted number), provides no format, and no example. The description does not compensate for the missing 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 clearly identifies the tool as a consultation ('consulta') of 'NFC-e Resumida' from 'SEFAZ RN', with a specific source. It also distinguishes itself from the generic sibling tools like marketplace or show_version. It could be a 5 if it explicitly stated what the response contains, but the verb+resource is clear.
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 gives operational details (prepaid credit, no platform credentials, LGPD responsibility) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. It does not state a scenario or say 'use this when...' or what other tools would be suitable instead.
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.