ANP: Postos, 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 | 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 and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, charges prepaid credit per query, returns non-confidential official data, and assigns data controllership to the customer. It does not explain response behavior, but the added operational and legal context goes beyond 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes necessary billing and legal context, though there is minor redundancy between 'consulta em fonte oficial' and 'informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros'.
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 one-parameter read-only query tool, the description covers source, authentication model, billing, and legal obligations. However, with no output schema and no parameter explanation, details about expected return values, error cases, or CNPJ formatting are missing, making it only moderately complete.
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 only one parameter, 'cnpj', with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not mention the parameter, its format, requiredness, or expected input, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema coverage beyond the parameter's self-explanatory name.
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 performs a query ('consulta') for ANP gas stations ('Postos') from an official source. It distinguishes itself from generic sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace, though it does not mention the CNPJ parameter explicitly.
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 context for use: no platform credentials required, prepaid credit per query, and LGPD responsibilities. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.