Busca um documento pela chave de acesso de 44 dígitos. LIMITES: só documentos que chegaram ao Ambiente Nacional nos ÚLTIMOS 90 DIAS, e nunca a nota em que este CNPJ é o EMITENTE (a SEFAZ não devolve a própria emissão).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chave | Yes | ||
| account | 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral constraints beyond the annotations, such as the 90-day window and the exclusion of own-issuance documents. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 two tight sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second front-loads the critical limits. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 is adequate for a simple lookup tool and covers the primary search key and constraints. However, with no output schema and no explanation of the 'account' parameter, an agent may not know what the tool returns or how the optional account affects the query.
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%, and the description does add meaning for the required 'chave' parameter by specifying its 44-digit format. However, the optional 'account' parameter is not mentioned at all, so the description only partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation.
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 states a clear, specific action: searching for a document by its 44-digit access key. This distinguishes it from sibling dfe_consultar_nsu, which searches by a different identifier, and from the other sibling tools.
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 explicit limitations: only documents that reached the National Environment in the last 90 days and never documents where the CNPJ is the issuer. This gives clear context about when the tool is usable, though it does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it.
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.
The six dfe_* tools are clearly distinguished by key/NSU/sync/quota/account/DANFE, but the platform layer has overlap: connect and toolkit_info both report connection/status, and marketplace contains a report_bug action that duplicates the standalone report_bug tool. The detailed descriptions help, but an agent can still misselect between these near-duplicate entry points.
The dfe_ prefix gives the fiscal tools a recognizable family, but the set mixes Portuguese and English (dfe_consultar_chave vs dfe_list_accounts) and mixes prefixed domain verbs with bare English platform verbs (authenticate, connect, show_version). It is readable and mostly snake_case, but not one consistent convention.
Twelve tools is a reasonable, manageable count. The slight over-inclusion comes from six generic platform/meta tools (marketplace, authenticate, toolkit_info, report_bug, etc.) that sit alongside the DF-e domain tools, making the surface broader than the server name implies.
The receipt-side DF-e workflow is mostly covered: sync, lookup by chave/NSU, quota check, account listing, and DANFE generation all exist. However, there is no manifestation/event tool (ciência, confirmação, desconhecimento), so resumo documents cannot be upgraded to complete XML/DANFE within this server, and the sync description references an auditor_fiscal_auditar_nota tool that is not present.