SEFAZ RO: 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 signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those hints: prepaid billing, lack of platform credentials, the data is the same as available to citizens, not confidential, and the customer is the LGPD data controller. This covers cost, access, and legal expectations without contradicting 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 a single compact paragraph with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by payment, credentials, and LGPD context. It avoids unnecessary length, though the LGPD clause is somewhat boilerplate and could be shorter without losing essential meaning.
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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers purpose, official source, payment model, and data-control responsibilities. However, with no output schema and no parameter format guidance, the return-value expectations and the exact nfce input requirement remain unaddressed.
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 0% description coverage and the required 'nfce' parameter is only typed as a string with no explanation of format or expected value. The description only hints at the NFC-e domain but does not specify whether nfce is an access key, invoice number, or other identifier. This is a significant gap for correct invocation.
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 opens with 'SEFAZ RO: NFC-e Resumida, consulta em fonte oficial', naming the exact resource and operation: querying summarized NFC-e data from the official SEFAZ/RO source. This clearly distinguishes the tool from platform-level siblings like authenticate, connect, and marketplace.
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 clear operational context: hosted by the platform, no platform credentials required, pay per query with prepaid credit, and data comes from official Brazilian sources. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sibling list contains no competing data-query tools, so the guidance is sufficient.
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.