Conselho Regional de Odontologia RN: 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 indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description reinforces this by stating it is a 'consulta' (query). It adds behavioral details about prepaid credits and LGPD compliance, and clarifies that the data is not confidential. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the payment model and legal responsibility.
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 main purpose and then provides operational and legal context. It is concise, using three sentences without extraneous wording. The information about hosting, payment, and LGPD adds valuable context without bloat.
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 data nature (official, non-confidential), legal responsibility, and payment model, but it lacks details about the input parameter (registration number) and the output format. Since there is no output schema, the description should have explained what data is returned. It also doesn't mention any limitations or pagination. It is somewhat complete for a simple lookup but missing key operational details.
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 parameter 'inscricao' with no description, and the tool description does not explain its meaning, format, or expected values. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation, leaving the agent without guidance on what to provide.
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 is for consulting the CRO RN registry ('Cadastro, consulta em fonte oficial'). It specifies the domain (Conselho Regional de Odontologia RN) and the action (query), making the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from generic sibling tools by naming the specific council.
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 provides usage context: the tool is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, and uses prepaid credits. It also specifies legitimate use under LGPD, which guides when to use the tool. While it does not explicitly state 'use this to verify registration', the legal and payment notes give operational guidance.
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.