SEFAZ BA: 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?
The annotations already say readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful details beyond structured fields: prepaid credit payment, no platform credentials required, official non-confidential data, and LGPD responsibility for legitimate purpose.
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 four sentences and front-loads the central purpose in the first sentence. It efficiently packs cost, auth, sovereignty, and legal responsibility, though the LGPD sentence is slightly tangential to invocation mechanics.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, official source, payment, and data governance responsibilities. It does not explain the return shape or parameter formatting details, but the tool is otherwise well contextualized.
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 required `renavam` string with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what `renavam` means, its format, or any constraints; it relies on the name and domain context to convey that this is the vehicle registration number.
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 phrase "SEFAZ BA: IPVA, consulta em fonte oficial" clearly identifies this as an official IPVA query tool for SEFAZ BA. It is specific to the IPVA domain and distinct from the unrelated platform/toolbox siblings, though the main verb is effectively supplied by the tool name.
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?
No explicit alternatives or exclusion criteria are given, but the context strongly implies use when IPVA information from SEFAZ BA is needed. The payment and hosting notes give operational constraints, but no clear 'use this instead of X' guidance is provided.
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.