SEFAZ PR: Guia de 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ano | 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?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds important behavioral traits: it costs per query with prepaid credit, requires no platform credentials, uses data from official Brazilian sources that is not confidential, and places LGPD responsibility on the client. These details go beyond what annotations provide.
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 a single paragraph but packs relevant information about the official source, payment mechanism, credentials, data sensitivity, and legal responsibility. It is not overly verbose, though a structured list might improve clarity. The main purpose is front-loaded.
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 tool is simple (2 params, no output schema) and the description covers legal and payment context well. However, the complete omission of parameter semantics is a significant gap, and there is no hint about the response format. Given these limitations, it is only 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?
The schema defines two required string parameters (renavam and ano) with no description, and the tool description does not explain them at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description was supposed to compensate, but it only mentions the general query context, leaving the agent to guess the meaning and format of renavam and ano.
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 the tool is for querying IPVA guide information from SEFAZ PR, using the verb 'consultar' and identifying the resource 'Guia de IPVA'. It is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, marketplace, etc., which are unrelated. However, it does not explicitly mention the required parameters (renavam and ano) or the exact output, so it stops short of a full 5.
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 clear usage context: it is a paid query using prepaid credit, requires no platform credentials, and accesses public official data. This implies the tool should be used when the user has credit and needs IPVA data. No alternatives are named, but since siblings are unrelated, the absence is acceptable.
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.