Exporta o XML de um ou mais CT-e (zip) e devolve a URL de download (temporária). Mesma ação do botão Exportar XML do emissor, não altera o documento.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | ||
| account | No | ||
| empresa_id | 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 readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'não altera o documento'. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: output is a zip containing XML, and the download URL is temporary. No mention of authentication or file expiration details, but for a read-only export this is sufficient.
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, front-loaded with the action and outcome, and every sentence adds value. The analogy to the button and the safety note are both useful without irrelevant detail.
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?
For a simple read-only export, the description covers the main behavior and return value (temporary download URL). However, with three parameters and no output schema, it leaves the account and empresa_id parameters unexplained, so the context is only partially complete.
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 not explain the parameters. It only hints that the tool handles 'um ou mais CT-e', which partially clarifies that the 'ids' array contains CT-e identifiers, but it does not mention 'account' or 'empresa_id' or how they should be used.
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 action ('Exporta'), the resource ('XML de um ou mais CT-e'), and the output (zip and temporary download URL). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like hivecloud_mdfe_xml (MDF-e) and hivecloud_cte_dacte (DACTE PDF) by specifying CT-e XML and download link.
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?
Usage is implied: one should use this tool when needing the raw XML of CT-e documents. It provides a concrete analogy ('Mesma ação do botão Exportar XML do emissor') but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives such as hivecloud_get_cte or hivecloud_list_ctes.
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 server mixes two distinct domains (HiveCloud fiscal documents and mcp.ai platform controls) with several similarly-named tools (hivecloud_list_ctes vs hivecloud_get_cte vs hivecloud_cte_xml; hivecloud_list_mdfes vs hivecloud_get_mdfe). The generic 'authenticate', 'connect', and 'toolkit_info' overlap in connection/account status purposes, creating ambiguity about which to call for setup.
Tools mostly follow a 'hivecloud_<domain>_<action>' pattern (e.g., hivecloud_cte_emitir, hivecloud_cte_cancelar), but there are exceptions like 'hivecloud_avaliar' (short verb without domain), 'get_cte' vs 'list_ctes' (tense/plural inconsistency), and generic tools 'authenticate', 'connect', 'report_bug' that don't follow the pattern. Mixed Portuguese/English verbs further reduce consistency.
With 33 tools, this is on the heavy side. The domain spans CT-e, MDF-e, NF-e, DC-e, plus platform management (marketplace, toolkit, bug reporting, versioning) — it bundles too many concerns into one server. Several tools (report_bug, show_version, marketplace) feel unrelated to HiveCloud fiscal document handling, making the count feel bloated.
For the CT-e and MDF-e lifecycle, the surface is quite complete: create from NF-e, emit, cancel, edit (carta de correção), delete drafts, print DACTE/DAMDFE, export XML, list/get, and even a travel report. DC-e and NF-e are lighter (only list/query), and missing tools like 'create_mdfe' (no draft creation for MDF-e) or 'update_mdfe' (only cancel/end) are notable gaps. However, core workflows are well covered.