SEFAZ PR: 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses additional behavioral traits: no platform credentials required, pay-per-query with prepaid credit, querying non-confidential official data, and LGPD responsibility. These add meaningful context about operation cost and legal requirements.
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 four sentences, containing relevant information about purpose, hosting, credentials, cost, data confidentiality, and LGPD compliance. While slightly verbose, each sentence adds value and the structure is clear.
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?
Given the simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers operational context (payment, credentials, data type) but lacks an explanation of the parameter or the response format. It does not mention what the IPVA query returns, which would help the agent understand expected outcomes.
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 single parameter 'renavam' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the description does not mention it at all. It does not explain what renavam is or how it should be formatted, so the agent receives no semantic guidance beyond the parameter name.
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 states 'SEFAZ PR: IPVA, consulta em fonte oficial' which clearly identifies the tool as a query for IPVA data from the official SEFAZ PR source. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or show_version.
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 context such as 'Hospedado pela plataforma, sem credenciais da plataforma' and 'pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago', indicating the tool is a paid service without platform credentials. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling tools are unrelated.
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.