Consulta o status/detalhe de uma NFS-e emitida, por invoice_id.
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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it queries status/detail and supports bulk, consistent 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 terse sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states primary function, second adds bulk support. Efficiently conveys key information.
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 read-only query tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality and bulk support. Missing details on return format or company parameter, but sufficient for agent usage.
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?
Although schema has 0% description coverage, the description explains that invoice_id is for single query and invoice_ids for batch, adding meaning. However, the company parameter remains unexplained.
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 tool queries status/detail of a NFS-e by invoice_id. It differentiates from siblings like notafiscal_baixar_nfse, notafiscal_cancelar_nfse, and notafiscal_listar_nfse.
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?
Specifies using invoice_id for single query and invoice_ids for batched execution. Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but sibling names suggest 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.