DETRAN RJ IPVA: DARJ, 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 | No | ||
| 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: prepaid credit payment, no platform credentials, official data source, and LGPD compliance. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't describe edge cases or response behavior, preventing a 5.
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 few sentences long and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it includes some redundancy (repeating 'fonte oficial' and 'fontes e órgãos oficiais') and legal boilerplate that could be trimmed. It is not overly verbose but contains non-functional filler.
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?
Without an output schema and with only 2 parameters, the description should explain what the tool returns and how the parameters are used. It provides payment and legal context but omits functional details like the meaning of 'ano' or response format. The tool is only partially described for an agent to invoke it confidently.
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 mention the 'renavam' or 'ano' parameters at all. It provides no information about their formats, requiredness, or semantics. The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 identifies this as a 'consulta' (query) for DARJ from DETRAN RJ, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the generic sibling tools by stating the exact domain (IPVA) and source (fonte oficial). While 'DARJ' is a technical acronym, the overall purpose is 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?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The text mentions payment and LGPD but does not state scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. It is implied this is the tool for DARJ queries, but there is no 'use this when' or 'use that instead' 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.