SINTEGRA: SUFRAMA, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| cpf | No | ||
| cnpj | No | ||
| tipo_arquivo_visualizacao | 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 indicate the tool is read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavior beyond this: each query costs prepaid credit, no platform credentials are needed, and the data is not confidential. It also clarifies LGPD responsibility for data usage. These are meaningful additions not covered 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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action. Four sentences each add meaningful context: what it queries, hosting/authentication, pricing/credit, data nature, and legal responsibility. No unnecessary repetition or fluff.
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 covers the tool's purpose, cost model, and legal context, but lacks specifics about input parameters and return data. There is no output schema, so the description should ideally clarify what the response contains. As a standalone description, it is adequate but leaves gaps in how to actually invoke the query and interpret results.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining the parameters (cpf, cnpj, tipo_arquivo_visualizacao). However, the description provides no details about these parameters, their formats, or how they are used. The tool name and context hint at CPF/CNPJ as identifiers, but the description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics.
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 performs a query ('consulta') against the official SINTEGRA/SUFRAMA source, and specifies the scope as official Brazilian government data. This distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling 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?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: it is a paid query with prepaid credit, works without platform credentials, and accesses only non-confidential official data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but the context is sufficient for a standalone tool.
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.