DETRAN RS: Guia de Pagamento, 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is a paid query (prepaid credit), returns non-confidential data, and imposes LGPD responsibilities on the client. This extends beyond the annotations without contradiction.
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 with the purpose. It includes necessary legal and cost details in a few sentences. It is not excessively verbose, though some legal disclaimers could arguably be trimmed, but it remains 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 params, no output schema), the description should at least clarify the expected input format (e.g., plate format, Renavam usefulness) and output nature. It does not explain what the query returns or how to construct a valid request. The legal/payment context is present but technical details are missing, making it incomplete for an agent to use 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 two parameters (placa, renavam) with no descriptions, and the description provides zero parameter information. It does not explain what 'placa' (license plate) or 'renavam' mean, nor which is optional/required. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill the parameters.
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's purpose: 'Guia de Pagamento, consulta em fonte oficial' (Payment Guide, query in official source). It specifies the resource (DETRAN RS payment guide) and the action (query). It is distinct from sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.), which are generic platform utilities.
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 some usage context (e.g., hosted by the platform, prepaid credit required) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks explicit 'use when' or 'avoid if' guidance, though the tool is unique among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.