SINTEGRA: CE, 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 mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: payment via prepaid credit, no need for platform credentials, data is not confidential, and the customer acts as data controller under LGPD. No contradiction with annotations.
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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It includes relevant operational, legal, and payment context, though 'fonte oficial' is somewhat repeated across sentences.
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 consultation tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description should clarify what data is returned, how 'ie' and 'cnpj' are used, and whether one is required. It provides good source/payment/LGPD context but lacks essential operational completeness.
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 input schema provides only the property names 'ie' and 'cnpj' with no descriptions, and the description does not mention or explain these parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent is left to infer what 'ie' means and whether one or both fields are required.
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 names the specific resource ('SINTEGRA: CE') and the action ('consulta'), stating it queries information from official Brazilian sources. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as authenticate or marketplace.
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 clear usage context: it is hosted by the platform, requires prepaid credit, does not need platform credentials, and consults public/non-confidential official data. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are largely unrelated.
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.