SINTEGRA: RS, 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 the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, destructive), the description discloses that there is a per-query cost ('pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago'), no platform credentials required ('sem credenciais da plataforma'), and that the data is not confidential ('não é dado sigiloso'). These add significant operational context not captured by 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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and each sentence adds a distinct piece of information (purpose, hosting/payment, data nature, legal responsibility). There is no redundancy or filler, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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?
While the description covers service context (hosting, auth, cost, legal), it fails to explain how to invoke the tool correctly: it does not describe the return value, nor does it clarify the 'ie' and 'cnpj' parameters. Given no output schema, this is a significant gap for an agent to call the tool 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description never mentions the 'ie' or 'cnpj' parameters or their meanings. The agent is left without any guidance on what values to provide or whether one is required, making it a minimal score.
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 does a SINTEGRA query for Rio Grande do Sul ('SINTEGRA: RS, consulta em fonte oficial'), with a specific action verb ('consulta') and resource (official SINTEGRA RS source). It also differentiates from sibling tools by the 'RS' qualifier, even though no explicit alternative is mentioned.
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 useful usage context: hosted by the platform, no platform credentials needed, prepaid credit required, and a legal condition (client as data controller per LGPD). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
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.