Conselho Regional de Odontologia PR: 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 declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, so the safety is clear. The description adds value by noting it is hosted on the platform, requires pre-paid credit, returns non-confidential data, and includes LGPD responsibility. This is useful context beyond the 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 moderately sized with several clauses about payment and LGPD. It is not overly verbose but could be more concise. It front-loads the purpose and adds contextual details, so it is acceptable.
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?
Given the single parameter and lack of output schema, the description could describe the return format or error cases. It mentions consulting information but not what specific data is returned. It covers prerequisites (payment) but is not fully complete.
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 only parameter is 'inscricao' with no schema description. The description never explains what this parameter means (likely a registration number). With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate 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 states it consults registration ('Cadastro, consulta em fonte oficial') from the Regional Council of Dentistry of Paraná, which is a clear verb+resource. It doesn't explicitly say 'query' but 'consulta' implies it. It distinguishes from siblings as none are related.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions payment requirements and data sensitivity but does not state conditions for use or exclusions. Sibling tools are unrelated, so no differentiation is provided.
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.