SEFAZ AL: IPVA (ano atual), 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?
The description goes beyond annotations by mentioning no platform credentials required, prepaid payment per query, data is not confidential, and LGPD compliance responsibilities. These add behavioral context not present in readOnlyHint/idempotentHint.
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 a compact paragraph of about three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes necessary operational details without excessive fluff, though the LGPD sentence could be trimmed.
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 the source, scope, payment, credentials, and legal aspects, which is sufficient for a simple query tool with two params. It lacks explicit return format details, but no output schema exists and the description is otherwise 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?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the parameters 'placa' and 'renavam'. While these are common in Brazilian vehicle context, the tool description provides no semantic meaning, forcing the agent to infer from naming.
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 queries IPVA (current year) from official sources, specifically SEFAZ AL. It uses a specific verb (consulta) and resource (IPVA), and is clearly distinct from sibling tools which are 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?
It provides context for when to use: for official IPVA data, without platform credentials, and with prepaid credit. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives but the sibling list makes it obvious this is a data lookup. The payment and LGPD notes offer additional usage 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.