DPVAT: Emissão de Guia, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| uf | Yes | ||
| renavam | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful extra context: payment is required per query, the information is not confidential, and LGPD controller responsibilities fall on the client. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 core purpose. The extra billing and LGPD sentences are relevant operational details, though they could arguably be trimmed without losing the essential tool behavior.
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 two-parameter read-only query tool, the description covers purpose, cost, authentication, and data sensitivity. However, since there is no output schema, it does not clarify what the returned guide data looks like, and it leaves the required parameters implicit.
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 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention 'renavam' or 'uf' at all. It therefore adds no meaning beyond the parameter names, which are domain-specific but not explained. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.
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 names the DPVAT guide consultation as the main purpose and connects it to official Brazilian sources. 'Emissão de Guia' adds slight ambiguity by sounding like a generation action, but 'consulta' and the tool name make the read-oriented purpose clear. It stands apart from the unrelated sibling tools.
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 useful operational context: no platform credentials are needed, each query consumes prepaid credit, and the data is the same public citizen-available information. It implicitly tells the agent not to use authentication-related sibling tools, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.