ANTT: Veículo, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| cpf | No | ||
| cnpj | No | ||
| placa | No | ||
| rntrc | 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?
Beyond the readOnly annotation, it clarifies data is non-confidential, mentions LGPD compliance, and payment per query. No contradiction with annotations; adds useful operational details.
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?
Description is somewhat verbose and repetitive (e.g., 'fonte oficial' and 'LGPD' mentioned multiple times). Could be tightened without losing meaning.
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?
Covers cost and data sensitivity, but omits what the tool returns, which parameters are required, and any usage constraints. Since output schema is absent, more context would help.
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?
No explanation of any of the four parameters (cpf, cnpj, placa, rntrc). Schema has no descriptions, and the description does not clarify their roles or requirements, making it hard to know what to supply.
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 states it is a vehicle consultation from official sources (ANTT), distinguishing it from sibling tools like authentication or reporting. The verb 'consultar' and resource 'Veículo' are specific.
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?
Implies usage for querying vehicle information and mentions prepaid credit cost, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (though none exist). It gives sufficient context for when to invoke.
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.