SINTEGRA: SP, 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?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable context: payment per query, no platform credentials needed, data is non-confidential, and LGPD compliance responsibilities. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting 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 relatively concise (four sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. Some redundancy exists ('consulta em fonte oficial' and 'Consulta informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros' are similar), but it remains efficient overall.
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?
With no output schema and no parameter explanations, the description fails to cover key operational details: what the parameters mean, whether either is required, and what the response contains. The legal/payment context is helpful but does not compensate for these 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 input schema lists 'ie' and 'cnpj' with no descriptions, and schema coverage is 0%. The description provides no explanation of what these parameters represent or how to use them, leaving the agent without essential information for correct invocation.
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 queries official Brazilian sources (SINTEGRA SP) with a specific verb ('consulta', 'Consulta informação'). It differentiates from siblings by specifying 'SP' and the official source nature, making its purpose unambiguous.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other query tools, authenticate, marketplace). It mentions payment and hosting but does not specify scenarios or exclusions, leaving usage timing vague.
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.