DER BA: Nada Consta, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ait | No | ||
| placa | Yes | ||
| renavam | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: no platform credentials required, prepaid credit per query, data is not confidential, and client is data controller under LGPD. This helps the agent understand cost and legal responsibilities.
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 three sentences long, packed with essential information about source, credentials, payment, and legal compliance. It is not overly verbose and front-loads the primary purpose. Slightly dense but efficient.
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 key contextual aspects such as payment, authentication, and data handling, but omits parameter guidance and output format. Given the simple query tool nature and strong annotations, it is mostly complete, yet the parameter gap prevents it from being fully self-sufficient.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (ait, placa, renavam) or their semantics. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the tool description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of explanations, leaving the agent without guidance on required formats or optional usage.
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 function: 'DER BA: Nada Consta, consulta em fonte oficial' and explains that it queries official Brazilian sources. It uses a specific verb ('consultar') and resource ('DER BA Nada Consta'), distinguishing it from generic sibling tools like authenticate or show_version.
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 operational context such as 'sem credenciais da plataforma' and 'pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Since siblings are platform-wide tools, the usage context is implied but not explicitly articulated.
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.