Sivisa: SP, 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 | ||
| municipio | 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 indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it requires prepaid credit, does not use platform credentials, and handles non-confidential data with LGPD compliance. This adds some context but does not clarify return values or side effects beyond what annotations imply.
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 moderately concise but includes legal and billing details that are not directly actionable for an agent. It front-loads the main purpose but then digresses into contractual info, making it less focused than ideal.
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?
With no output schema and sparse parameter info, the description should explain what the tool returns and how to pass inputs. It does neither. The legal/commercial context is present but does not compensate for the lack of technical guidance, leaving the tool underspecified for an agent.
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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the meaning or format of 'cpf', 'cnpj', or 'municipio'. Since the schema only lists types, the description fails to clarify which parameter is needed for what query, leaving the agent without essential input semantics.
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 it queries information from official Brazilian sources ('consulta em fonte oficial', 'Consulta informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros'), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like authenticate and show_version, but does not specify what exact information (e.g., CPF/CNPJ lookups) it provides, leaving some ambiguity.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description focuses on legal/payment aspects rather than usage context, so an agent has no criteria for selecting it over other tools.
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.