SEFAZ BA: Emitir guia de 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 indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds value by disclosing that no platform credentials are needed, it is pay-per-query, and data controller responsibilities (LGPD). This goes beyond the structured fields.
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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes necessary operational and legal context in just a few sentences. No fluff, but it could be slightly better organized with the param explanation.
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 one-parameter query tool, the description covers purpose, official source, payment model, and data responsibility. It doesn't explain the output format, but given no output schema, this is acceptable. Overall it provides sufficient context for a basic read-only query tool.
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 shows one required parameter 'renavam' with zero schema description (0% coverage). The description does not explain the parameter or its format, so the agent must infer from the name alone. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Emitir guia de IPVA' (issue IPVA guide) and clarifies it's from an official source. This distinguishes it from the generic siblings like 'connect' or 'marketplace'.
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?
Provides context on when to use (for IPVA consultation) and mentions 'consulta em fonte oficial' but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The platform/hosting and payment details imply usage conditions, but no explicit exclusions are given.
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.