SINTEGRA: AP, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ie | 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context: it is hosted on the platform without credentials, pay-per-query with prepaid credit, the data is not confidential, and the client is the controller under LGPD. This exceeds the annotation baseline and provides useful operational and legal transparency.
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 paragraph that front-loads the core purpose ('SINTEGRA: AP, consulta em fonte oficial') and then adds necessary commercial and legal context. It is not overly verbose and earns its length with relevant details.
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 query tool with no output schema, the description should mention parameter requirements (e.g., at least one of IE/CNPJ) and possibly the response format. It does not. The description adequately conveys the tool's nature but leaves gaps in usage specifics.
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 description does not explain the parameters 'ie' and 'cnpj' at all. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fails to clarify how they are used (e.g., one or both required, input format). The parameter names are suggestive but not explanatory, and the description offers no compensation for the low schema coverage.
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 it is a consultation tool for SINTEGRA AP, an official Brazilian source, with a specific verb 'consulta' and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which are about authentication, reporting, etc.) by emphasizing its domain-specific function.
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?
It provides context (official source, paid, LGPD) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or exclude any situations. Sibling tools are unrelated, so no direct conflict, but the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
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.