SEFAZ MT: 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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?
Beyond the annotations, the description explains important behavioral facts: the operation is billed per query, it runs via the platform without platform credentials, and it accesses only official, non-confidential Brazilian data. It also discloses LGPD responsibilities, which is important context for the agent before invoking the tool.
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 primary purpose and then adds the key operational and legal context that an agent should know. It is slightly dense and repeats 'consulta' a couple of times, but each sentence contributes meaningful information.
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 handles the context around the operation well: official source, pricing, authorization model, and legal responsibility. However, it never explains how to select among the four identifier parameters, and with no output schema it also leaves the expected response format unstated. It is usable but materially incomplete.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and no required parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining the four inputs (cpf, cnpj, chassi, renavam), but it never mentions them or says which identifier is needed. The agent is left to guess whether one or more of these fields are necessary for a valid query.
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 explicitly identifies the action and resource: 'SEFAZ MT: IPVA, consulta em fonte oficial', making clear this is an IPVA query against an official state source. It also clearly differentiates this tool from the sibling tools, which are platform/auth/utility operations rather than data lookup tools.
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 provides useful usage context: it is a hosted official-source query, requires no platform credentials, is paid per query with prepaid credit, and is restricted to non-confidential, citizen-accessible information. This is clear contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools for IPVA lookup.
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.