SINTEGRA: RO, 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 and idempotentHint, and the description adds value by stating it requires prepaid credits, involves no platform credentials, and clarifies data is not confidential. It also adds a legal note about LGPD compliance. This goes beyond what annotations provide and does not contradict them.
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 short, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes necessary operational details (payment, legal). Each sentence adds relevant context without redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.
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 parameters and no output schema, but the description does not explain what the query returns, which parameter to use, or that it is specific to Rondônia (only in the name). It lacks critical operational details like required identifiers and expected results, making it incomplete for an agent to use 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 three parameters (ie, cpf, cnpj) are not described or explained. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not mention which parameter to provide or their formats. The labels are standard acronyms but the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already gives, and there is no guidance on combinations or requirements.
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 performs a consultation in official sources (SINTEGRA RO), which is specific and clear. It does not explicitly mention the state (RO) in the text, but the tool name implies it. It distinguishes from siblings since siblings are unrelated tools (authenticate, connect, etc.).
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?
It implies usage for querying official Brazilian sources but does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives. There are no alternative consultation tools among siblings, so explicit exclusions are not needed. It mentions payment via prepaid credits, which is a prerequisite, but no clear when-to-use vs other tools.
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.