DETRAN DF: Veículo (Mobile), 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 indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it is a paid per-query operation, uses prepaid credits, requires no platform credentials, queries non-confidential official data, and includes LGPD/controller responsibilities. No contradiction with 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 starts with the purpose and keeps each sentence informative. Some legal and compliance details could be trimmed for a pure tool definition, but they provide useful operational context. Overall, it is reasonably concise and structured.
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?
For a simple 2-parameter read-only tool, the description covers key operational aspects: official source, payment model, credentials, and legal responsibility. However, with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the agent still lacks concrete information about the expected result and valid input formats, leaving meaningful gaps.
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 zero description coverage for both 'placa' and 'renavam', and the description does not compensate. It does not explain what RENAVAM is, expected formats, examples, or constraints. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory for a Brazilian vehicle tool, but the description adds no param-level meaning.
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 uses a specific verb ('consultar') and resource ('DETRAN DF: Veículo (Mobile)'), making the core operation clear. It distinguishes this from the generic sibling tools like authenticate and marketplace, though it does not state exactly which vehicle information fields are returned.
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 useful usage context: this is a paid consultation using prepaid credits, requires no platform credentials, and queries official Brazilian sources. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when it should not be used.
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.