Skip to main content
Glama

Carpedia

by br.com.carpedia
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Imagem do veículo

carpedia_imagem_veiculo
Read-onlyIdempotent

Imagem do modelo — foto do carro quando existe; senão o logo da marca; senão um monograma. Sempre devolve algo renderizável, com a atribuição correta (ilustração de IA é marcada como tal). Aceita o fipeId da versão OU os slugs de marca e modelo do catálogo Carpedia.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
anoNoAno-modelo "AAAA" ou "0 Km" — schema do manifesto de fotos, NÃO o "32000" do domínio de preço.
marcaNoSlug da marca (ex.: "jeep"). Obrigatório sem fipeId.
fipeIdNoCódigo (fipeId) da versão — alternativa aos slugs.
modeloNoSlug do modelo (ex.: "compass"). Obrigatório sem fipeId.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / fipeId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Código (fipeId) da versão — alternativa aos slugs.",
+  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+  "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / marca / description
      Previous value: -"Slug da marca (ex.: \"jeep\")."New value: +"Slug da marca (ex.: \"jeep\"). Obrigatório sem fipeId."
    • changedInput schema / properties / modelo / description
      Previous value: -"Slug do modelo (ex.: \"compass\")."New value: +"Slug do modelo (ex.: \"compass\"). Obrigatório sem fipeId."
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "marca",
-  "modelo"
-]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the fallback chain, the guarantee that something renderable is always returned, and the attribution/AI-illustration labeling rule. Only the concrete return format is left unstated.

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, both front-loaded: the visual behavior and guarantee come first, the input contract second. No redundant filler and nothing that could be cut without losing meaning.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and handles it well by describing the fallback content and attribution. The only notable gap is that the concrete image format/location (URL vs. inline) is not specified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter; baseline is 3. The description adds value by synthesizing the either/or contract ('fipeId OR marca+modelo slugs from the Carpedia catalog'), making the grouping explicit rather than leaving it to be inferred from individual field notes.

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?

States the resource precisely ('Imagem do modelo') and even the fallback chain (photo → brand logo → monogram), so an agent immediately knows this returns a vehicle visual. It does not name a sibling tool to differentiate from, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

The description implies usage by describing the two accepted input modes (fipeId or marca/modelo slugs), but never says when to prefer this tool over siblings like carpedia_marca or carpedia_preco_fipe. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Carpedia toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources