INMETRO: Cronotacógrafo (Detalhes), 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 | 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?
Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description discloses that the operation requires prepaid credits, has no platform credential requirement, and clarifies that the data is non-confidential and subject to LGPD. This adds useful behavioral context about cost, authentication, and data handling.
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 moderately concise but includes redundant legal and business phrases (e.g., repeated references to LGPD and official sources). It is a single paragraph with several sentences, which could be tightened. The structure is acceptable but not highly 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?
The description covers cost, data nature, and hosting, but it does not explain return values or error handling. Since there is no output schema, it would be helpful to mention what the query returns (e.g., certificate details). For a simple read-only query, it is adequate but not complete.
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 lists two required string parameters ('placa' and 'renavam') with no descriptions. The description does not mention or explain these parameters, leaving the agent with no information about their meaning or expected format. Coverage is zero and no compensation is provided.
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 is for querying official INMETRO tachograph certificate details from official Brazilian sources. It specifies the resource (cronotacógrafo) and the action (consulta), distinguishing it from sibling tools like authentication or reporting.
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 indicates it is a paid query requiring prepaid credits and notes that no platform credentials are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It implies usage for certificate lookups but lacks direct guidance.
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.