Cadastro Ambiental Rural: Download de Shapefile, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| car | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds meaningful context: hosted platform, prepaid credit payment, official data sources, non-confidential data, and LGPD compliance. This enriches the agent's understanding of operational and legal constraints.
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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by relevant operational and legal details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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 tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, access method, payment model, data origin, and legal responsibilities. It is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.
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 one required 'car' string parameter with no description coverage. The description implies 'car' refers to the CAR registry identifier through domain context, but it doesn't explicitly explain what value to provide or its format. This is a minor gap.
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 downloads/consults shapefiles for the Cadastro Ambiental Rural (CAR) from official Brazilian sources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming a specific resource and action.
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 clear context: used for downloading CAR shapefiles from official sources, with payment per query and no platform credentials. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it scores a 4 rather than a 5.
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.