SEFAZ SE: 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?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those flags: prepaid billing per consultation, absence of platform credential requirements, non-confidential government-source data, and LGPD data-controller responsibilities. This exceeds what annotations alone convey.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds relevant operational and legal details. It is a little dense but each sentence contributes useful context, and there is no redundant repetition of the tool name or annotations.
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 one-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers purpose, source, authentication, billing, and data sensitivity well. However, it does not describe the nfce parameter semantics or what the response contains, and with no output schema present, the agent is left with some uncertainty about invocation and return behavior.
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 coverage is 0%, and there is only one required parameter, 'nfce'. The description refers to NFC-e in general but does not explain what the 'nfce' field should contain, its expected format, or any length/pattern constraints. This leaves a critical invocation detail underspecified.
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 action ('consulta') and the specific resource ('NFC-e' via SEFAZ SE), and it is easily distinguished from the sibling platform-management tools. The official-source framing reinforces a precise purpose.
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: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, and is paid per query with prepaid credit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but none of the sibling tools overlap with this data-consultation purpose.
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.