ANP: Base de Distribuição, consulta em fonte oficial. Hospedado pela plataforma, sem credenciais da plataforma, pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago. Consulta informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros (a mesma disponível ao cidadão), não é dado sigiloso. O cliente é o controlador dos dados e responde pela finalidade legítima (LGPD).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cnpj | Yes | ||
| tipo_instalacao | Yes |
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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond this: the tool is pay-per-query, requires prepaid credit, accesses official Brazilian citizen-available data (not confidential), and places LGPD compliance responsibility on the customer. 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?
The description is front-loaded with the purpose and remains fairly concise across three sentences. The payment and LGPD caveats are relevant operational details, not padding, and the structure makes the tool’s main function immediately clear.
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 query tool with two required parameters and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, payment, and legal context. However, it lacks any detail about the expected output or how to format the parameters, which is a notable gap given there is no output schema.
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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining 'cnpj' and 'tipo_instalacao'. It does not mention either parameter, their formats, or allowed values. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no concrete parameter guidance.
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 opens with 'ANP: Base de Distribuição, consulta em fonte oficial', clearly identifying the specific resource (ANP Distribution Base) and the action (query/consult). It differentiates from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which serve unrelated purposes.
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 provides useful context: it is hosted on the platform, requires no platform credentials, is paid per query with prepaid credit, and queries official non-confidential data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.