SEFAZ MT: IPVA (Extrato), 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| cpf | No | ||
| cnpj | No | ||
| chassi | No | ||
| renavam | No |
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 state readOnlyHint, not destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by disclosing operational behavior: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, costs prepaid credits per query, exposes the same data citizens have, and imposes LGPD responsibility on the client.
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 front-loaded with the main purpose and delivers key operational and legal context in a compact form. Only minor redundancy appears, but the overall length is appropriate for a read-only lookup tool.
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 provides good context for authentication, cost, data classification, and legal responsibilities. However, with no output schema and no explanation of which identifier(s) to supply or their formats, an agent lacks full contextual completeness for invoking the tool successfully.
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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the four parameters (cpf, cnpj, chassi, renavam), their formats, combinations, or whether at least one is required. The parameter names are somewhat self-evident, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation or guidance.
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 identifies the exact operation: 'consulta em fonte oficial' for 'SEFAZ MT: IPVA (Extrato)'. It names the specific verb, the government source, and the data resource, distinguishing it clearly from sibling tools like authenticate 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?
The description gives useful context: no platform credentials required, prepaid per-query credits, and non-confidential official data. It does not explicitly describe when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the context is enough for most agent decisions.
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.