Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sinapi-mcp

sinapi-mcp

by VC202504
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

comparar_ufs

Compare an item's price across all downloaded Brazilian states (UFs), ordered from lower to higher, for the same reference period and regime.

Instructions

O preço de um item em todas as UFs baixadas, do mais barato ao mais caro, na mesma competência e regime.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "codigo": "<codigo>"
    },
    "name": "comparar_ufs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
baseNoSINAPI
codigoYes
regimeNosd
competenciaNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the scope (all downloaded UFs) and ordering (cheapest to most expensive), but does not state that it is a read-only operation, nor does it mention error handling or permission requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the tool's core output and ordering.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given four parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema that only covers returns, the description is incomplete. It does not explain input semantics (especially base) or provide usage context, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain all four parameters. It references the item (codigo), competence (competencia), and regime, but completely omits the base parameter and provides no format or allowed values for any parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns the price of an item across all downloaded UFs, sorted from cheapest to most expensive under the same competence and regime. It is specific about scope and ordering, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like buscar_precos.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the scope—comparing prices across UFs—but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of alternatives such as buscar_precos. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools