DETRAN AL: Licenciamento, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| placa | Yes | ||
| renavam | 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 read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds transparency about payment (prepaid credit), hosting, lack of platform credentials, and LGPD data controller responsibilities, which are useful beyond the annotations and do not contradict them.
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 concise, front-loads the core purpose, and keeps sentences short. It includes some extra legal context that is not essential for tool selection but does not bloat the description excessively.
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?
There is no output schema and the description omits details about expected result format, parameter semantics, or error conditions. It provides general context about official sources and payment but is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without prior domain knowledge.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the parameters 'placa' or 'renavam' — no formats, examples, or meaning. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema details.
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 it consults licensing information from DETRAN AL, using specific verbs ('consulta') and resource ('Licenciamento'), and distinguishes from sibling tools which are about authentication, marketplaces, or bug reporting.
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 implies usage for DETRAN AL licensing queries but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. It mentions payment and official source, which are contextual but not direct usage 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.