SINTEGRA: PA, 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, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, charges per query with prepaid credit, and clarifies data is not confidential and the client is data controller under LGPD. This goes beyond 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 a single, dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose and includes key operational details (payment, hosting, LGPD). It is concise but could be slightly more structured; however, every sentence adds value.
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 has no output schema and three undocumented parameters, the description provides some context (official source, payment model, LGPD) but lacks critical information about how to use the parameters, whether they are mutually exclusive, and what the response contains. It is adequate for a simple query tool but leaves gaps.
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%, and the description does not explain the three parameters (ie, cpf, cnpj) beyond their names. The description mentions consultation of official sources but does not clarify that these are likely identifiers (Inscrição Estadual, CPF, CNPJ) or that at least one is required. With zero coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
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 SINTEGRA PA consultation from an official source, specifying the state (PA) and the nature of the data (official Brazilian sources, not confidential). It distinguishes from siblings by being the only consultation tool among generic platform tools (authenticate, connect, etc.), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 implies usage for querying official Brazilian data with prepaid credits, and mentions the client is responsible for legitimate purpose under LGPD. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond payment.
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.