SNCR: Consulta Pública de Imóveis, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| uf | Yes | ||
| municipio | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses crucial behavioral traits: no platform credentials needed, pay-per-query with prepaid credit, non-confidential data, and LGPD data controller responsibility. This adds meaningful context about cost and legal obligations not covered by 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 three sentences long, each adding relevant information: purpose, hosting/billing, and data governance. It is somewhat dense but avoids fluff and is front-loaded with the primary action.
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?
For a simple query tool with only two parameters and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, billing, official source nature, and legal responsibility. It does not describe return values, but this is not critical given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the query.
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 the parameters 'uf' and 'municipio' beyond their self-evident names. No format, examples, or required value formats are provided, leaving the agent to infer semantics from parameter names alone.
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 states 'Consulta Pública de Imóveis' (Public Property Consultation) and 'consulta em fonte oficial' (consultation from official source), identifying the action (consult) and resource (properties via SNCR). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are platform-level (authenticate, connect, etc.).
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 implies usage for querying official Brazilian public property data and mentions prepaid credit requirements, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly guided.
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.