Conselho Regional de Odontologia BA: Cadastro, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| inscricao | 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 mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive-play, which the description enforces by calling it 'consulta'. The description adds that data is not confidential and that the client is the data controller, which is useful. However, it does not describe the output format, potential errors, or that payment is deducted per query (beyond prepaid credit). Adds some value but lacks depth.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by billing and legal notes. It is efficient and to the point, without excessive fluff. Good structure for a value-added description.
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 tool is a simple read-only consultation with one parameter. The description covers the source (official), the context (CRO-BA), payment, and legal compliance. Missing details like the exact type of registration (e.g., dentist number) and expected output format. A bit more context would make it complete, but it's adequate for a straightforward query.
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?
Schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'inscricao'. The description mentions 'Cadastro' which implies it's the registration number, but it never explicitly defines the parameter's format or meaning. Given zero schema descriptions, the description should compensate more but does not.
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 consults registrations from the Regional Council of Dentistry of Bahia (CRO-BA). It uses the verb 'consultar' and specifies the data source (official registry). The purpose is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.
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 mentions the payment model (pay per query with prepaid credits) and legal responsibility for LGPD compliance, but does not explain when to use this tool vs. others, or the required input format for 'inscricao'. Some usage context is provided, but it's incomplete.
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.