Cancela uma NFS-e emitida (IRREVERSÍVEL, sujeito ao prazo de cancelamento do município). Confirme antes de chamar.
Bulk support: accepts invoice_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company | No | ||
| invoice_id | Yes | ||
| invoice_ids | 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 provide destructiveHint:true, and the description adds important behavioral context: 'IRREVERSÍVEL' (irreversible), subject to municipal deadline, and support for batched execution via invoice_ids. No contradiction with 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?
Two sentences, each essential. The first sentence states the primary action and its key traits, the second adds bulk support. No unnecessary words.
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 lacks details about the output or return values, and the optional 'company' parameter is unexplained. Given the tool's complexity (destructive, bulk support) and no output schema, more context would be helpful.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must clarify parameters. It explains that 'invoice_ids' enables bulk support, but does not describe 'company' or 'invoice_id' beyond their presence in the schema. This adds some value but leaves gaps.
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 explicitly states 'Cancela uma NFS-e emitida' (cancels an emitted NFS-e), clearly identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'notafiscal_emitir_nfse' (emit) and 'notafiscal_consultar_nfse' (consult) by focusing on cancellation.
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 includes 'Confirme antes de chamar' (confirm before calling) and mentions irreversibility and municipal deadline, guiding the agent to use caution. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives.
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.
Tools like 'marketplace' and 'toolkit_info' have overlapping functionality regarding installed MCPs and tool listing, potentially confusing an agent. Similarly, 'authenticate' and 'connect' both handle authentication aspects. However, the notafiscal tools are clearly distinct by operation.
The tools mostly follow a snake_case convention, and the notafiscal tools share a consistent prefix ('notafiscal_'). Minor deviations exist (e.g., 'notafiscal_empresas' uses a noun instead of a verb), but overall the pattern is predictable.
With 12 tools covering both a generic MCP marketplace and a specific invoice service, the count is well-scoped. Each tool serves a clear purpose without unnecessary bloat or gaps.
The notafiscal tools cover the main CRUD lifecycle (emit, consult, list, cancel, download) and the marketplace tools cover discovery, installation, and account management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to update an invoice or manage user accounts), but the core workflows are supported.