SINTEGRA: RR, 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 | ||
| 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 annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description adds valuable details: hosted by the platform, no credentials needed, pay-per-query, non-confidential data, and LGPD responsibility. It does not contradict 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 relatively concise, with the purpose front-loaded. Some sentences about legal liability (LGPD) are peripheral to tool usage but not excessive. It earns a 4 for efficient structure.
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 2 optional parameters, no output schema, and existing annotations, the description provides useful context (pricing, data non-sensitivity) but lacks detail on response format, parameter usage, or examples. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 description does not explain the parameters 'ie' and 'cnpj' at all. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it only mentions 'SINTEGRA: RR' without connecting the parameters. Users must infer that 'ie' likely means Inscrição Estadual, but it's not stated.
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 it is a query (consulta) to official sources, specifically SINTEGRA RR, which differentiates it from the generic sibling tools like authenticate or show_version. However, it could be more explicit about the exact data returned (e.g., state registration info), so not a 5.
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 mentions payment via prepaid credit and no platform credentials, giving practical usage context. It does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, but since siblings are unrelated platform tools, that is less critical. It lacks explicit exclusions or preferred scenarios.
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.