Conselho Regional de Odontologia GO: 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?
Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses the payment requirement, lack of platform credentials, official/public nature of the data, and LGPD controller responsibilities. This adds meaningful behavioral context and does not contradict any annotations.
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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and uses four compact sentences, each covering a relevant aspect: purpose, access/payment, data source/sensitivity, and legal responsibility. No sentence is wasted.
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 one-parameter read-only lookup with rich annotations, the description is complete: it specifies the source, access requirements, cost model, data sensitivity, and legal context. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because the tool is a simple query and no return-value contract is defined.
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 a single required string `inscricao` with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the expected format, source, or example value. The domain context implies it is the CRO-GO registration number, but the description itself adds no explicit parameter-level meaning.
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 identifies the tool as a query ('consulta') of CRO-GO ('Conselho Regional de Odontologia GO') registration data from an official source. This is specific and distinct from the generic sibling tools like authenticate, marketplace, and report_bug.
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?
It provides clear usage context: hosted by the platform, no platform credentials required, pay-as-you-go with prepaid credits, and data is the same public information available to citizens. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative query tool, but the sibling set contains no comparable lookup tool.
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.