Search for an exact NPU and prepare the case to be opened without logging the access.
Pesquisa um NPU exato e prepara sua abertura sem registrar o acesso ao processo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| grau | Yes | ||
| numero | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| grau | Yes | ||
| aviso | Yes | ||
| numero | Yes | ||
| expira_em | Yes | ||
| frase_confirmacao | Yes | ||
| referencia_preparo | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail beyond those annotations: it does not register the access to the process, which is useful for predicting side effects in a workflow context.
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?
A single, focused sentence that states the main action and the key behavioral caveat without any filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
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?
The output schema and annotations cover return values and safety, so the description does not need to explain those. However, the description omits parameter-level guidance and does not clearly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'abrir_autos_pesquisa_geral', leaving moderate gaps for an agent deciding how and when to invoke it.
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%, so the description must compensate, but it only references 'NPU' in prose without explicitly mapping it to 'numero' or explaining the 'grau' parameter. The enum values are visible in the schema, but no format, meaning, or relationship between the parameters is described.
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 the action: searching for an exact NPU and preparing its opening, without registering access to the process. It is specific about the resource and behavior, though it does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling tool 'abrir_autos_pesquisa_geral'.
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 the use case: use this when you need to prepare access to an exact NPU but avoid logging that access. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the routing decision partially implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.