Correios: Rastreamento, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| tracking_code | 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 cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about data being from official sources, non-confidential, and LGPD compliance, but it does not explain error handling, response format, or any limitations beyond the platform's credit model. The extra info is helpful but not comprehensive.
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 somewhat verbose, repeating the notion of official sources and adding legal disclaimers (LGPD) that are tangential to the tool's core function. While not excessively long, it includes boilerplate that could be trimmed for clarity. The first sentence is concise, but the rest dilutes the message.
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?
The description explains data provenance and legal aspects but fails to specify what the output contains (e.g., tracking events, status, dates). With no output schema, the description should indicate the expected return value to give agents a clear picture, but it doesn't. Thus, it is incomplete for practical use.
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 parameter 'tracking_code' has zero schema description, and the tool description does not elaborate on its format, length, or expected values. The name implies a tracking code, but without explicit guidance, an agent could not reliably construct a valid input. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema coverage.
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's function: it consults tracking information from the official Brazilian Correios source. It is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, and the verb 'consulta' with the resource 'rastreamento' is 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions payment with credits but does not explain conditions for use, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate (e.g., when a tracking code is available and current). No comparisons to other tools are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.