SINTEGRA: DF, 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 readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is clear. The description adds context that it's hosted by the platform, requires prepaid credit, and is non-sensitive official data. However, it lacks detail on rate limits, response format, or any authentication nuances beyond the mention of no platform credentials.
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, with a single block providing key information (source, payment, data nature, LGPD). It is front-loaded with the tool's primary purpose. No redundancy, but it could be more structured with bullets for clarity.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 optional parameters, no output schema) and reasonable annotations, the description covers essential operational context (hosting, payment, legal responsibility). However, it lacks details on typical usage scenarios and what exactly the response contains, leaving some gaps for a complex data source.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The parameters (ie, cpf, cnpj) are names that suggest taxpayer identifiers, but the description does not explain their roles, formats, or mutual exclusivity. It mentions the federal context implicitly but doesn't clarify which identifier is needed or how they interact.
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 states it consults official Brazilian sources (SINTEGRA DF) but the verb 'consulta' and resource are somewhat vague. It doesn't mention what kind of data is returned (e.g., taxpayer registration status), making it less specific. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by naming the SINTEGRA DF source, but the purpose could be more precise.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when not to use it, prerequisites, or which parameters are expected (IE, CPF, CNPJ) for typical use. It does mention payment needs but not usage context.
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.