SINTEGRA: RN, 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?
Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description adds behavioral context: the tool is hosted, requires payment per query, and the client is responsible for LGPD compliance. This enhances transparency about side effects (cost) and data handling.
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 paragraph that includes necessary functional information but also verbose legal disclaimers (LGPD, data control). It is not excessively long, but the legal content could be condensed to improve focus on the tool's core purpose.
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 provides some context: it is a query, requires payment, and involves public data. However, it omits output format, error handling, and parameter usage details, leaving the tool's full behavior under-specified. Given the sparse schema, the description does not fill the 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?
The schema lists three parameters (ie, cpf, cnpj) with no descriptions, and the tool description provides no explanation of these fields. Users cannot determine their meaning, format, or which are mutually exclusive, making the parameters effectively undocumented.
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 that the tool performs a query against the official SINTEGRA RN source, distinguishing it from sibling tools like authentication or marketplace. However, it does not explicitly define what SINTEGRA RN is, which could reduce clarity for unfamiliar users.
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 practical usage notes such as requiring prepaid credit and not needing platform credentials, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for legitimate queries but lacks clear selection criteria.
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.