SEFAZ AM: IPVA, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context about being hosted on the platform, no credentials required, prepaid credit model, and LGPD responsibility. However, it does not disclose behavior like response format, error handling, or rate limits. This is adequate but not rich.
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 relatively brief, about 3 sentences, but includes legal jargon about LGPD and data controller responsibilities that may not be essential for tool selection. It is somewhat front-loaded with 'SEFAZ AM: IPVA', but includes a lengthy legal disclaimer that could be shortened. Overall, it is concise but not maximally 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 tool has no output schema, so the description should explain return values. It does not mention what IPVA data will be returned (e.g., amount due, vehicle details, etc.). It also omits input requirements for renavam (e.g., format, 11 digits). The description covers payment/legal but misses functional completeness.
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 one parameter (renavam) with no description in the schema. The description does not mention renavam at all, nor does it explain what format or purpose it serves. With 0% schema coverageathe description completely fails to compensate, leaving the agent without any guidance on the parameter.
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 (vehicle property tax) from SEFAZ AM, an official Brazilian source, using a specific verb 'consulta' (query). It distinguishes itself from generic platform tools by specifying the resource (IPVA) and jurisdiction (Amazonas). However, it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools, though none seem directly related.
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 mentions the tool is for IPVA consultation and that it uses official sources, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references are given. The only context is payment model and LGPD compliance, which do not help select between tools.
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.