Conselho Regional de Odontologia PB: 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?
The description adds behavioral and compliance context beyond the annotations: the client requires prepaid credit per query, the data is non-confidential citizen-available information, and the customer is responsible for GDPR/LGPD purpose. This is useful information not present in annotations and does not contradict the read-only/idempotent hints.
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 compact and informative, with the main purpose placed first and then the relevant operational/payment and legal context. It does not contain filler or redundant repetition, although the Portuguese phrasing is a bit dense and somewhat compacted into one block.
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 covers the source, payment model, and legal responsibilities well, but it is incomplete in important practical dimensions. There is no output schema and no description of the expected result or input format, so an AI agent cannot confidently predict the required input details or response shape.
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 parameter, 'inscricao', with no description at all. The tool description never explains the format, meaning, or accepted value for this parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%. The agent is left without any reliable instruction on how to fill the only required input.
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 tool identifies a specific resource, CRO-PB cadastro, and describes a query action against an official source. It is more specific than the tool name alone and distinguishes it from unrelated sibling tools like authenticate, marketplace, or report_bug. Still, the phrase 'Cadastro, consulta em fonte oficial' is not as crisp as 'queries the subscription status of a professional', so it leaves some room for interpretation.
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 communicates useful context: the query is a prepaid, citizen-available, official-source lookup and does not require platform credentials. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over alternatives or how to combine it with authenticate/marketplace, so usage guidance is mostly implied rather than stated.
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.