SEFAZ SC: Dívida Ativa, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| cnpj | No | ||
| renavam | 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?
The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explicitly states the tool is pay-per-query, requires no platform credentials, and that the data is non-confidential. This aligns with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations and adds cost and data-privacy constraints.
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 dense paragraph mixing purpose, hosting, billing, and legal compliance. It is not overly long but lacks clear structure; the legal LGPD paragraph could be separated from functional details. All sentences carry some information, but efficiency could be improved.
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 query tool with no output schema and two undocumented optional parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what data is returned, how to interpret results, or that at least one parameter is likely needed. The legal/billing context is present, but the core functional context is missing.
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 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters (cnpj, renavam) at all. The tool name hints at taxpayer/vehicle identification, but the description fails to clarify which parameter to use or how they relate to the query.
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 states the tool consults 'Dívida Ativa' from SEFAZ SC via official sources, but does not specify the exact operation or the role of the parameters (cnpj, renavam). It distinguishes from unrelated siblings but lacks specificity about what the tool returns or how it is invoked.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, required parameters, or typical use cases. The description focuses on legal and billing aspects rather than usage context.
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.