SINTEGRA: BA, 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 | ||
| 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 declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond that: hosting, prepaid payment, data is non-confidential (same as citizen access), and LGPD compliance responsibility. This gives the agent awareness of cost, legal obligations, and data sensitivity nuances.
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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It conveys essential operational and legal context without excessive verbosity. Each sentence adds information; no filler.
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?
With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description should cover what the tool returns and parameter semantics. It only says 'consulta informação' without specifying output fields or structure. It also doesn't clarify whether exactly one identifier is required or combinations are allowed. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.
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 the description does not explain the three optional parameters (ie, cpf, cnpj) or their usage. It doesn't state that these are alternative identifiers or that at least one is likely needed. The parameter names are self-explanatory to Portuguese speakers, but the description adds no semantic guidance beyond the schema.
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's a query tool for SINTEGRA BA (official Brazilian source) and clarifies it's hosted by the platform with no platform credentials required. It distinguishes purpose from sibling tools (which are about auth/utility), but doesn't specify exactly what data is returned (e.g., company registration details).
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 context: it's an official source, pay-per-query, no credentials needed, and the client bears LGPD responsibility. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs alternatives (though siblings are unrelated). There's no exclusionary guidance, but the implicit use-case is clear for SINTEGRA lookups.
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.