SEFAZ RR: 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond these: that it is hosted without platform credentials, requires prepaid credits per query, and that data is public and non-confidential. It also clarifies data controller responsibilities under LGPD. This enhances transparency 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 sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and includes essential operational details (payment, LGPD) without redundancy. It is concise and each clause adds value, though the density might reduce readability.
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 simple read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context about official sources, payment, and legal compliance. However, it omits the meaning of the sole parameter and does not mention return format or error behavior, leaving minor gaps. Given the absence of an output schema, some return description could be expected, but the core purpose is clear.
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 one required parameter 'nfce' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description fails to explain what the 'nfce' parameter represents (likely the NFC-e access key or number), leaving the agent to infer from the tool name. This is a significant gap for a single-parameter tool.
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 performs a query ('consulta') of NFC-e documents from the official SEFAZ RR source, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which serve different purposes.
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 consulting official Brazilian public data (NFC-e) and mentions payment and LGPD compliance, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on selection among similar tools.
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.
There is significant overlap: marketplace internally includes report_bug, connection status, and install management, duplicating the dedicated report_bug, connect, and toolkit_info tools. Authenticate and connect are also related to authentication/connection, making boundaries unclear.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: single verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), and a long domain-specific snake_case (sefaz_rr_nfce_consultar). This makes the set feel chaotic and unpredictable.
Although 7 tools is a reasonable count, the server is named for SEFAZ NFC-e yet only 1 tool serves that domain. The other 6 are generic platform management tools (auth, connection, marketplace, version) that are out of place in a domain-specific server.
The domain surface is severely incomplete: a single NFC-e consultation tool, with no support for searching, listing, canceling, or other common NFC-e operations. Meanwhile, platform management is over-covered, with multiple overlapping tools and marketplace's broad feature set.