carpedia_resumoResumo editorial publicado no Carpedia. Informe fipeId para o resumo da VERSÃO, ou marca+modelo (slugs) para o resumo do MODELO. Texto redacional — não traz especificações técnicas do veículo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| marca | No | Slug da marca — junto com `modelo`, resumo do modelo. | |
| fipeId | No | Id da versão — resumo da versão. | |
| modelo | No | Slug do modelo — só válido junto com `marca`. |
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 cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the return is editorial text and explicitly excluding technical vehicle specifications, which helps set expectations beyond the 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 concise sentences that front-load the tool's purpose and then give clear, scoped usage instructions. No filler or redundant wording.
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?
Given there is no output schema, the description adequately conveys the nature of the result ('editorial text') and what it does not contain (technical specs). It is complete enough for a simple read-only lookup tool, though it could mention potential response format or language.
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?
The schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, including their roles. The description repeats and reinforces the fipeId-vs-marca+modelo distinction but does not add substantial meaning beyond what is already in the parameter descriptions.
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?
Clearly identifies the tool as an editorial summary ('Resumo editorial') and distinguishes it from other Carpedia tools by noting it does not provide technical specifications. It also explains the two lookup modes (by fipeId for version, or by marca+modelo for model), making the purpose unmistakable.
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?
Provides explicit parameter usage: use fipeId for a version summary, or marca+modelo for a model summary. It implicitly differentiates from technical-spec tools by stating the summary is editorial and not technical, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.