SINTEGRA: PB, 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, but the description adds substantial context: no platform credentials needed, prepaid per-query billing, data is the same available to citizens, and the client is data controller under LGPD. This goes well beyond the annotations and clarifies cost, auth, and legal responsibility.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose and each sentence adds useful information: official source, hosting/credentials, pricing, data classification, and LGPD responsibility. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.
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 description covers billing, auth, data classification, and legal context well. However, for a tool with three undocumented optional parameters and no output schema, it omits how the parameters should be used and what kind of result the agent should expect, leaving meaningful 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 roles of 'ie', 'cpf', or 'cnpj', whether they are alternatives, or whether at least one is required. The bare property names hint at Brazilian identifiers, but the description adds no real semantic value 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 opens with 'SINTEGRA: PB, consulta em fonte oficial', using a specific verb ('consulta') and a specific resource (SINTEGRA PB official source). It further clarifies that it queries official Brazilian sources, which clearly distinguishes it from unrelated sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and report_bug.
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 operational context: the tool is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, is paid per query with prepaid credit, and queries official non-confidential data. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools are so unrelated that confusion is unlikely.
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.