DETRAN RJ: Nada Consta, 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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / cnpjRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / cpfRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / placaAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / renavamRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "renavam"
-]New value: +[
+ "placa"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond that: no platform credentials required, pay-per-query with prepaid credit, data is not confidential, and LGPD compliance responsibilities. This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and requirements.
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 contains multiple sentences covering purpose, payment, credentials, data nature, and legal responsibility. Each sentence provides information, but the inclusion of legal/commercial details makes it somewhat verbose for a simple query tool. It is structured reasonably, starting with the core purpose.
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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers payment, authentication, and data sensitivity. However, it does not mention what the response contains or any expected return format, which could leave an agent uncertain about interpreting results. This is a moderate gap.
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 parameter 'placa' with no description (0% schema coverage). The tool description does not explain the parameter's format, meaning, or examples. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the absent schema documentation.
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 performs a DETRAN RJ 'Nada Consta' query from an official source, using the specific verb 'consulta' and naming the resource. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools which are platform management tools (authenticate, connect, etc.).
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. Usage context is only implicit via the service name and description. Sibling tools are unrelated, but still no direct usage direction is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.