Conselho Regional de Odontologia: 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| uf | Yes | ||
| 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?
The description adds useful behavioral details such as cost (prepaid credit) and data privacy (LGPD, not confidential). The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, which the description does not contradict, but the added cost and legal context enhance transparency partially.
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 a single paragraph with some legal and business jargon, making it slightly verbose. However, it is not excessively long and contains relevant information, though it could be more streamlined.
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 provides context about the official source, payment, and data protection, but it omits practical usage details (e.g., what the parameters represent, any restrictions) and does not specify expected output or error scenarios. This leaves gaps for the user.
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 parameters 'inscricao' and 'uf' are not explained at all in the description. The user is left to infer their meaning (likely registration number and state code), but no explicit elaboration is provided, making it deficient.
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 purpose: querying CRO registration information from an official source. It specifies the domain (Regional Council of Dentistry) and the action (consulta), making it unambiguous.
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 payment per query and lack of platform credentials, but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. It lacks explicit usage scenarios or conditions.
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.