Bombeiros RJ: Taxa de Incêndio

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description reveals that calling with no args returns a link, and passing a token establishes a session-only login, adding context beyond the annotations. It does not fully describe the response shape or error behavior, but the safety profile is already covered by annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false).

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 a single run-on sentence with multiple clauses and awkward phrasing like 'log in in the browser'. While it contains all necessary details, it could be split into clearer instructions (e.g., numbered steps) and trimmed for readability.

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 description covers the input modes well but does not specify the return values or success/failure responses. Since there is no output schema and the tool has no required parameters, an agent would benefit from knowing what to expect when calling with no args versus with a token.

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?

The input schema only lists an optional 'token' string with no description. The description explains that the token is a JWT pasted by the user, and that omitting it triggers the login-link flow, giving complete meaning to the parameter and its absence.

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 tool's purpose: authenticate to MCP.AI for IDE agents by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It differentiates from siblings by focusing specifically on the authentication flow and provides a concrete resource (the server config header or session token).

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 gives explicit instructions on when to use different invocation modes: no args to get a login link, token parameter for session-only login, and recommends configuring a permanent header in the server config instead of using the tool for long-lived access. This clearly communicates alternatives and exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: no platform credentials required, prepaid per-query billing, official Brazilian data sources, non-confidential data, and LGPD data controller responsibilities.

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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by essential operational and legal context. It is a single coherent paragraph without unnecessary repetition, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 read-only query with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers source, confidentiality, auth, and billing. However, it omits expected output format, error possibilities, and any validation or formatting details for the parameters.

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?

The schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain 'inscricao_predial' or 'municipio' beyond what their names imply. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage with format, examples, or further parameter detail.

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 identifies the tool as a fire tax consultation for Rio de Janeiro state ('Bombeiros RJ: Taxa de Incêndio, consulta em fonte oficial'). It specifies the resource (fire tax) and the action (consulta), and it is clearly distinguished from the generic sibling tools like authenticate and connect.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. The description focuses on platform hosting, payment, and LGPD compliance rather than usage context or prerequisite conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds concrete behavioral details: the exact response structure under two conditions (all connected vs. missing credentials). It doesn't expose additional complexity beyond what annotations imply, which is acceptable for a status-check tool.

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 two sentences long and front-loads the primary purpose. It contains no filler and every clause adds meaningful detail about the return values and conditions. Slightly more detail is given, but it's necessary to explain the conditional states.

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?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and robust annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description is nearly complete. It explains the two main states of the response and provides the key URLs. One might expect it to state the response format (e.g., JSON) but that's not critical for a zero-input tool with annotations covering safety.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no information. The description compensates with rich detail about the return values and the conditional behavior, effectively explaining what the user can expect from calling this tool without any inputs.

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 tool returns connection status and URLs. It specifies the exact values returned when all providers are connected (authenticated:true and empty pending[]) and when credentials are missing (connect_url and per-install URLs), distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate which likely handles the connection process.

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 a monitoring or status-checking use case (when to check if providers are connected). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but given sibling tools like authenticate and toolkit_info, the context clarifies its role as a read-only status query.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses rich behavioral context beyond the annotations: invoke works even for non-installed MCPs without bloating the tool list, returns connect/checkout links for credentials or empty wallet, writes require workspace owner/admin, and prompt links open without login. There is no contradiction with readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false.

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 dense but well-organized, using 'Core flow:', 'KEY:', and semicolons to structure a multi-action tool. It is long, but the length is mostly justified given the number of actions and business rules. A bullet list or shorter paragraphs would improve scannability, but every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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?

Given the complexity (14 actions, 23 parameters, no output schema), the description covers a remarkable amount: core flow, one-off invocation semantics, install vs invoke trade-off, auth permissions, billing/credential interactions, and prompt library behavior. It does not fully specify return shapes for every action or detail all parameters, so it is not a 5.

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?

With 23 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries a heavy burden. It explains the action parameter and core flow (search → describe → invoke), plus prompt-library operations, but it leaves many parameters unexplained, including immediate, tier_slug, conversation, cancel_reason, report_context, prompt_targets, request_details, and others. It compensates partially but not fully for the missing schema descriptions.

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 is explicit and specific: 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It names the resource (MCP/tool catalog), the primary behavior (search/describe/invoke), and clearly differentiates itself from the sibling tools by describing its multi-action dispatch model.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit', 'list_tools lists what is callable right now', and 'request_mcp asks us to build a NEW MCP when nothing fits.' It lacks explicit exclusions naming sibling tools, but the internal action guidance is strong.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already disclose idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, reducing the burden on the description. The description adds a small behavioral detail (including conversation array for reproduction) but does not explain what happens after submission or any side effects beyond that. There is no contradiction with 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes a practical instruction. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the action, the target, and how to include reproduction data. It could mention that 'message' is required, but that is covered by the schema's required field. Overall, sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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. It explains the 'conversation' parameter ('Include the conversation array with recent messages') but leaves 'context' unexplained and 'message' only implied by the overall purpose. It partially clarifies parameter meaning but not completely.

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 tool's purpose: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are unrelated (authentication, marketplace, etc.). It also adds a usage hint about including conversation data.

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 gives clear context (when to use: to report issues/feedback) and includes a specific guideline: 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's scope is straightforward and no sibling overlaps, so a 4 is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds the specific scope (platform and adapter versions) but does not disclose additional behavioral context such as return format or potential error conditions.

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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant information, achieving excellent conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, trivial operation), the description is complete and sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema documents this fully. The description does not need to add parameter explanations, so the baseline of 4 applies.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('MCP platform and adapter versions'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like authenticate or report_bug.

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 version checks but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. The context is clear given the tool's simplicity, but no explicit guidance is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals non-destructive behavior, and the description adds transparency by detailing exactly what information is returned. No contradictions or hidden side effects.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant information. It is well-structured and directly conveys the tool's purpose.

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?

Given the tool has no input and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns and its overall purpose. It is complete for its context.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. Per the rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-specific meaning.

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 tool's function: returning the current toolkit state with specific details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It distinguishes from siblings like connect or show_version.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where it should or should not be called, leaving usage ambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.