SEFAZ RS: 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?
Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and destructive hints. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: payment per query, no platform credentials, non-confidential data, and the client's role as data controller under LGPD. It does not contradict 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 a single focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs relevant operational and legal context efficiently. It is somewhat dense, but every clause adds meaningful 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?
For a simple read-only consultation tool, the description covers purpose, official source, pricing, and data governance. However, it omits how to use the CPF/CNPJ parameters, mutual exclusivity if applicable, and what the returned certificate looks like. The absence of an output schema makes this gap more noticeable.
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 mention cpf or cnpj at all. It fails to explain that these are Brazilian tax identifiers, whether one is required, or any formatting/validation rules. The description provides no compensation 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 resource (SEFAZ RS Certidão Negativa de Débitos) and the action (consultar/consulta em fonte oficial). It is specific enough to distinguish it from the unrelated sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and show_version.
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 provides useful context for use: it is an official Brazilian source, hosted by the platform, requires prepaid credit, and involves LGPD responsibilities. It does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, but no directly competing sibling tool exists, so the context is sufficiently clear.
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.