SEFAZ PB: 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 | ||
| placa | Yes | ||
| 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 declare readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent. The description adds valuable context: hosting, payment model, official source, non-confidential data, and LGPD responsibilities. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the operational and legal boundaries.
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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes extra context (payment, legal) without excessive verbosity. Could be slightly tighter but overall efficient.
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?
Tool has no output schema distance, so description should explain expected return values. It mentions it consults official sources but not what data is returned (e.g., IPVA amount, status, etc.). Also lacks parameter guidance footnote. Still, the basic context of 'IPVA consultation' is present, making it partially complete.
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 has 4 parameters (cpf, cnpj, placa, renavam) with zero description coverage. The description does not mention any parameters or their meaning, leaving the agent to infer. While placa and renavam are somewhat self-explanatory in the IPVA context, the optional cpf/cnpj filters are unexplained.
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 clearly states it's a consultation (consulta) of IPVA data from SEFAZ PB, a specific official source. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the exact resource and scope, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
It provides context that the tool uses official sources and requires prepaid credits, which implies when to use it (paid data queries). It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but sibling tools are generic platform functions, so the context is clear. No misleading guidance.
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.