DETRAN MS: Multas, 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is read-only and safe. The description adds context about hosting, payment, and data control (LGPD), which is useful but does not disclose behavioral traits like response format or error handling. It does not contradict 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 is concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the main action. It includes essential contextual information (official source, payment model, LGPD) without verbosity. Could be slightly more structured but is 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description covers commercial and legal aspects but lacks details on expected results (e.g., whether it returns fines list, status codes). However, with no output schema and basic parameters, it provides adequate context for an agent to select the tool.
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 two required parameters with no descriptions, and the description does not explain the parameters either. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but only mentions 'placa' and 'renavam' implicitly through the context of vehicle fines. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.
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 queries DETRAN MS fines from an official source, specifying the resource (multas) and the context (official Brazilian sources). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, as the siblings appear unrelated (authenticate, connect, etc.), so it lacks a direct comparison but still provides a clear purpose.
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 explains the commercial context (pay-per-query with prepaid credits) and legal compliance (LGPD), but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. The 'consulta em fonte oficial' implies usage for official fine queries, but it lacks clear exclusions or comparison to other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.