Consulta PÚBLICA de débitos e situação de um veículo pela placa em bases oficiais: IPVA, licenciamento, multas em aberto, restrições e dados do veículo (marca/modelo, ano). É a mesma informação de acesso público que o proprietário consulta no DETRAN, não exige RENAVAM. Uso típico: consultar o próprio veículo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| PLACA | Yes | ||
| completo | No |
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 signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the consultation is public, requires no RENAVAM, and lists the data categories returned.
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 focused sentences with the core function front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though the DETRAN comparison sentence adds a bit of redundancy with the 'PÚBLICA' point.
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 two-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, public access, and output scope. It remains incomplete because 'completo' is left unexplained and no output format is hinted, which matters since there is no output schema.
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 'completo' parameter. Only PLACA is contextually implied by 'pela placa', leaving the boolean parameter's meaning completely undocumented.
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 defines a specific verb and resource: public consultation of vehicle debits/status by license plate. It explicitly names covered data (IPVA, licensing, open fines, restrictions, vehicle data) and distinguishes itself by stating it does not require RENAVAM.
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?
It provides a clear typical use case ('consultar o próprio veículo') and contextual clues about public vs. authenticated access. However, it does not explicitly compare itself with sibling tools or state 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.
The five multa-related tools are clearly distinct by resource (vehicle debts, history, federal infractions, CNH points, vehicles by owner), but the platform-level tools overlap: authenticate/connect/toolkit_info all touch connection/auth status, and marketplace bundles many separate capabilities into one broad tool. This creates some boundary confusion for an agent selecting between them.
Domain tools follow a consistent 'multas_' prefix pattern, but utility tools use inconsistent English verb/noun styles: authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info. Mixing Portuguese noun-phrase names with generic English imperative/descriptive names makes the set feel disjointed and pattern-less.
Eleven tools is within a reasonable range, but it feels top-heavy because only five tools actually serve the core fines-consulta domain while the rest are platform/account/admin utilities. The huge marketplace tool also compresses many sub-operations into one entry, making the count misleading.
The core query workflow is covered: find vehicles by owner, query vehicle debts by plate, check federal infractions, and verify CNH points. Missing features like fine payment or appeal detail are beyond the stated consulta purpose, so there are only minor workaround-level gaps for the apparent scope.