DETRAN GO: Gravame, 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 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / chassiRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / placaAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "chassi"
-]New value: +[
+ "placa"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations: no platform credentials required, prepaid per-query billing, data sourced from official Brazilian agencies, non-confidential nature, and LGPD responsibilities. This gives an agent useful behavioral and compliance expectations.
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 and front-loaded with the core purpose ('DETRAN GO: Gravame, consulta em fonte oficial'), followed by essential operational and legal context. Each sentence adds useful information without excessive verbosity.
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 operational, legal, and authenticity aspects well, but it omits details about the expected output or result format. Since there is no output schema, a brief note about what the response contains would make the tool easier to invoke and interpret correctly.
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 one required parameter, 'placa', with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain the parameter format, such as Brazilian license plate conventions or expected string shape, leaving the agent to infer meaning from the parameter name alone.
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 identifies a specific query operation: consulting gravame information from DETRAN GO, an official source. The verb 'consultar/consulta' and resource 'Gravame' make the tool's purpose understandable, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools; however, the sibling tools are unrelated (authentication, marketplace, reporting), so confusion is unlikely.
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 operational context: the tool is hosted on the platform, requires no platform credentials, and is paid per query with prepaid credits. It implies use when official DETRAN GO gravame data is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.
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.