SEFAZ RO: NFC-e Completa, 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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about payment (prepaid credits), data source (official, same as available to citizens), and LGPD compliance responsibilities, which goes beyond annotations. No contradiction.
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 a single paragraph with several sentences, but it is relatively concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes necessary context about payment and legal compliance, though some sentences could be trimmed without losing essential information.
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?
Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and some operational details (payment, data source, LGPD). However, it lacks information about the expected input format and what the response contains, which is important for a tool that returns data. The description is adequate but not 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'nfce' parameter beyond its name. The description mentions 'consulta' but does not specify what format the nfce string should take (e.g., access key, number), leaving the agent without guidance on how to construct the parameter.
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 states the tool queries official SEFAZ RO NFC-e data, specifying the resource (NFC-e Completa) and the source (official). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a specific Brazilian tax document query, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other tools.
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 usage for querying official Brazilian tax information, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. It mentions payment via prepaid credits, which is a usage condition, but lacks clear context for selection.
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.