Convert latitude/longitude to UTM coordinates with easting, northing, zone, scale factor, and meridian convergence, using SIRGAS2000 or SAD69 and optional forced zone.
Converte latitude/longitude em coordenadas UTM (E, N, fuso), com fator de escala e convergência meridiana. datum: SIRGAS2000 (padrão) ou SAD69. fuso: força um fuso específico.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | ||
| lon | Yes | ||
| fuso | No | ||
| datum | No | SIRGAS2000 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. "Converte" plus the named outputs (E, N, fuso, fator de escala, convergência meridiana) make clear this is a deterministic computation, but it never states that the operation is side-effect-free, how hemisphere/southern-hemisphere false northing is handled, or what happens with invalid input.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the transform and its outputs, then per-parameter notes. Efficient, though the mid-sentence line break and the terse "fuso:" / "datum:" labels make it read more like schema notes than prose.
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?
No annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only source of behavior, and it partially covers returns and two parameters. It is not complete enough for an agent to call confidently, since input formatting for lat/lon and error/edge-case behavior are absent.
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%, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning for datum (SIRGAS2000 default vs SAD69) and fuso (forced zone), but says nothing about lat/lon despite them being typed as strings, leaving the accepted format (decimal degrees vs DMS, sign convention) undocumented — a critical gap for a coordinate conversion tool.
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?
States a concrete verb and resource ("Converte latitude/longitude em coordenadas UTM") and names the output components (E, N, fuso) plus scale factor and meridian convergence. The direction of the transform implicitly separates it from the inverse sibling utm_para_geo, though the sibling is never named.
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?
Usage is only implied: the fuso parameter is described as forcing a specific zone, which hints that by default the zone is derived from longitude, and datum defaults to SIRGAS2000. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus utm_para_geo, transformar_datum, or fuso_utm, and no conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.