SEFAZ RO: 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?
The description clearly states that the tool is read-only, uses pre-paid credits, requires no platform credentials, and that data is not confidential. These details go beyond the annotations, which already indicate read-only and non-destructive. It also clarifies that the client is the data controller. There is 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 a single, dense paragraph that packs in essential information about the source, payment, data privacy, and legal responsibility. It is not excessively long, but it could be more structured. The length is appropriate, but the lack of explicit parameter documentation and usage guidance reduces the efficiency.
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 that the tool is a simple query with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers key aspects like data source, payment, and legal responsibility. However, it doesn't provide details on the output structure or any prerequisites like the format of renavam, which could be crucial for correct invocation.
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 has only one parameter, renavam, which is required but has no description. The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must explain the parameter. The description does not mention renavam at all, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name. This is a significant gap.
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 states that it queries SEFAZ RO IPVA from an official source, which is specific enough to distinguish it from generic query tools. However, it does not explicitly mention the resource (renavam) or the specific action (consultar) beyond the name, and the description is somewhat generic about 'information from sources and official bodies' without clarifying that it specifically returns IPVA details.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus others. The description mentions it consults official sources and that the client is the data controller for LGPD, but it doesn't provide context on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The sibling tools include authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which are clearly different, but no explicit usage scenarios are given.
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.