Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-nfs-emissor

mcp-nfs-emissor

by fidsouzarv
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

Consultar status

consultar_status
Read-only

Check invoice statuses from the provider for a period, updating the summary CSV. Essential for async emission monitoring.

Instructions

Consulta no provedor o status atual das notas de uma competência (útil quando a emissão é assíncrona: processando → autorizada/rejeitada). Atualiza o resumo.csv.

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": {
      "competencia": "<competencia>"
    },
    "name": "consultar_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idLojaNoConsulta apenas esta loja.
protocoloNoConsulta por protocolo específico.
competenciaYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Description adds that it updates 'resumo.csv', which is a side effect beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. This provides useful behavioral context, but the contradiction with the annotation reduces confidence.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, concise with no unnecessary words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Description states purpose and a side effect, but lacks explanation of output format or how to interpret results, which is expected for a query tool without output schema.

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?

Schema covers 2 of 3 parameters with descriptions, but the required 'competencia' has only a pattern. Description mentions 'competência' but does not explain its meaning (e.g., month/year format) or elaborate on optional parameters.

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?

Description clearly states it queries the provider for current status of invoices for a competency, and gives context about async emission. It distinguishes from sibling tools implicitly by focusing on status checking, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

Description indicates usefulness when emission is asynchronous, providing state transition example. However, it does not specify when not to use or list alternatives.

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