SEFAZ TO: 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 and idempotent behavior. The description adds practical context beyond annotations: no platform credentials, prepaid per-query payment, the data is not confidential, and LGPD responsibilities. This gives the agent important operational and legal behavior without contradicting 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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. A few sentences are somewhat repetitive (e.g., 'fonte oficial' and 'fontes e órgãos oficiais'), but they also provide distinct legal/payment details, so overall each sentence earns its place.
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 no output schema, the description should ideally clarify what the agent receives back. It clearly covers the query source, legal context, and payment model, but it does not describe the return content or the parameter relationships, leaving some ambiguity for a data-query tool.
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 explain how 'placa', 'renavam', 'cpf', or 'cnpj' should be used or formatted. The IPVA context implies their purpose, but the description adds no real semantic value beyond the schema parameter names.
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 a specific verb+resource: 'consulta em fonte oficial' for 'SEFAZ TO: IPVA'. It clearly identifies the object (IPVA) and source (SEFAZ TO official) and is easily distinguished from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace.
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 gives clear context about payment model, official source, and LGPD responsibility, which helps the agent understand how the tool is used. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.
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.