DETRAN RO: 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| placa | Yes | ||
| renavam | No |
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?
The description adds essential behavior beyond annotations: it is a paid service ('pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago'), requires no platform credentials, and includes LGPD data control responsibilities. These details complement the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, providing crucial context for agents to inform users about costs and legal 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 compact and front-loaded, starting with the purpose, then payment, then legal context. It uses three clear sentences without redundancy, though it could be slightly improved by integrating parameter hints. Overall, it is well-structured and 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?
For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and charging model, but fails to explain what data will be returned or how to construct a request (e.g., that 'placa' is required). The lack of parameter documentation makes it incomplete, though the tool's simplicity reduces the overall complexity.
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 zero description coverage for both 'placa' and 'renavam', and the description does not mention these parameters at all. Agents have no guidance on how to fill them, what format is expected, or why 'placa' is required, leaving a critical gap in parameter understanding.
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 vehicle query ('consulta') on official DETRAN RO sources, specifying the resource (vehicle) and action (query). It distinguishes itself from unrelated sibling tools like authenticate and marketplace by providing a precise domain.
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 hints at usage for official Brazilian vehicle queries and mentions payment, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide conditions for non-use. There are no direct exclusions or comparisons, so the guidance is implied but not articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.