SEFAZ SC: 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 |
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?
Beyond readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds valuable context: hosted by platform, no credentials needed, pay-per-query via prepaid credit, and data is official and non-confidential. It also discloses legal responsibility (LGPD/data controller). This enriches the annotation info significantly.
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 sentence but front-loaded with the core purpose. It packs payment, data source, and LGPD aspects efficiently without excessive verbosity. Slightly complex due to multiple clauses, but still concise.
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 single-parameter read-only query with no output schema, the description explains the data source (official, same as citizen), payment model, and legal aspects. It doesn't detail the return structure, but 'consulta' implies retrieval of invoice info. Given simplicity, this is adequate, though it could mention what the response contains.
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 only one parameter 'nfce'. The description mentions 'NFC-e' in the opening, which implies the parameter is the invoice identifier, but it doesn't specify format (e.g., 44-digit access key) or required structure. Since coverage is low, the description partially compensates but lacks explicit parameter details.
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 'SEFAZ SC: NFC-e, consulta em fonte oficial' - a specific verb (consulta) and resource (NFC-e from SEFAZ SC). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.) which are platform utilities, while this is a domain-specific data query.
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 implicitly conveys usage context: it's for querying official Brazilian NFC-e data, with payment model (prepaid credit) and no platform credentials. However, it doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use or alternative tools, though siblings are unrelated, so this is acceptable.
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.