SINTEGRA: GO, 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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: payment requirement, hosting details, absence of platform credentials, and legal responsibilities (LGPD). It does not contradict annotations and enriches the safety profile with pricing and data sensitivity notes.
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 sentence but packed with useful information, including purpose, payment, and legal context. It is not overly verbose and front-loads the main action. Slightly dense, but acceptable given the amount of context it conveys.
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?
The tool has 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions. The description covers high-level aspects (source, payment, legality) but omits crucial details like how to construct a query, which parameter to use, or what the response looks like. The agent would be under-informed to invoke the tool correctly.
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 lists three parameters (ie, cpf, cnpj) with zero description coverage. The description does not mention these parameters at all, leaving the agent without guidance on what each parameter represents or when to use them. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but completely fails to do so.
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 the tool performs a query ('consulta') against official Brazilian sources (SINTEGRA GO). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate or report_bug, which are unrelated platform actions. The purpose is clear but could be more specific about the exact data returned.
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 usage context: querying official sources, hosted by the platform, no platform credentials required, and pay-per-query with prepaid credit. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than direct.
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.