SEFAZ PB: Emissão Dar, 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 | ||
| placa | Yes | ||
| renavam | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context: the query is paid with prepaid credit, requires no platform credentials, returns only non-confidential information available to citizens, and places LGPD responsibility on the client. No contradiction with annotations.
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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by payment, data source, and legal context. It is slightly repetitive around the 'official source' idea, but overall each sentence contributes useful operational context.
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 covers important context such as payment model, credential requirements, data sensitivity, and LGPD responsibility. However, it does not explain what the consultation returns or how the four parameters should be used, and there is no output schema to compensate.
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 does not explain the roles of placa, renavam, cpf, or cnpj. The parameter names are self-explanatory to a Brazilian audience, but the description adds no guidance about required combinations, formats, or selection logic.
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 tool as a consultation on the official SEFAZ PB DAR source, using the verb 'consulta' and naming the resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the sibling tools are generic platform utilities, so the domain-specific purpose is reasonably clear.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that it queries official Brazilian sources and that no platform credentials are needed, but it does not state use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites beyond payment.
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.