DETRAN MT: Veículo, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| cpf | No | ||
| cnpj | No | ||
| 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?
In addition to the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses important behavior: payment/prepaid credit requirement, absence of platform credentials, use of official non-confidential data, and LGPD responsibility. This materially improves an agent's understanding of side effects and obligations.
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 a compact but dense paragraph that front-loads the core function, then adds necessary cost, auth, and legal context. Every sentence contributes useful operational information; there is no padding or redundant boilerplate.
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, read-only query tool, the description conveys purpose, cost, auth, and legal expectations. However, there is no output schema and no mention of result contents, failure behavior, or parameter relationships, leaving some uncertainty about how to interpret the response.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention placa, renavam, cpf, or cnpj or their intended roles. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description provides no format, combination rules, or why CPF/CNPJ are optional, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
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 a specific action ('consulta') and a specific resource ('DETRAN MT: Veículo') in an official source. This distinguishes it from unrelated sibling tools such as authenticate and marketplace, so an agent can see this is a vehicle data lookup.
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 clear usage context and prerequisites: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, and is charged per query using prepaid credits. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is sufficiently clear for the intended use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.