Busca de CEP

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

Annotations already include idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context about non-expiring vs session-only connections and the browser login flow. It does not contradict any 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 slightly long but well-structured, with a front-loaded purpose and clear 'Best:' and 'Or' options. Every sentence is informative, though it could be tightened without losing value.

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 an authentication tool with no output schema, the description covers the core workflow: browser login, token optional, link return behavior. It does not explicitly describe success/failure response format, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Input schema has one optional 'token' with no description (0% coverage). The description explains that token is a JWT pasted by the user for session-only login, and that omitting the argument returns a login link, adding essential meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: logging in via browser and obtaining an access token for MCP.AI IDE agents. It specifies the resource and action, and differentiates from siblings by detailing two authentication modes (permanent config vs session-only).

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?

Provides clear instructions on when to use each mode: permanent header config vs session-only token pasting, and explicitly tells the agent to call with no args to get the link or with a token to authenticate. It lacks an explicit comparison to alternatives like 'connect' but the usage context is well-defined.

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?

As anotações já declaram readOnlyHint=true e idempotentHint=true, e a descrição adiciona contexto relevante: hospedagem na plataforma, ausência de credenciais, cobrança por consulta, acesso a dados públicos e responsabilidades LGPD. Isso vai além das anotações e não as contradiz, esclarecendo custos e implicações legais.

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 primeira frase é direta e as demais fornecem informações operacionais (credenciais, cobrança, dados públicos, LGPD) que são úteis para uso. Não há excesso significativo, embora a nota legal pudesse ser condensada sem perda de clareza.

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?

Para uma ferramenta simples (2 parâmetros, sem schema de saída), a descrição cobre propósito, método de acesso, custo e natureza dos dados. A única lacuna é o significado do parâmetro 'completo', mas o essencial para seleção e invocação está presente.

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?

O esquema não fornece descrições (cobertura 0%), e a descrição da ferramenta também não explica os parâmetros. 'Endereco' é razoavelmente óbvio, mas 'completo' (booleano) não é detalhado, deixando o agente sem saber o que o flag controla. A descrição deveria compensar a falta de informações no schema, mas não o faz.

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?

A descrição começa com 'Retorna o CEP e o endereço padronizado dos Correios a partir de um endereço informado', que é um verbo específico (retorna) com recurso claro (CEP/endereço) e entrada definida (endereço). Não há ambiguidade e a ferramenta se distingue imediatamente dos irmãos, que são de autenticação, relatórios, 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?

A descrição fornece contexto útil: não requer credenciais, pago por consulta com crédito pré-pago, e consulta dados públicos. No entanto, não menciona explicitamente quando usar em detrimento de alternativas nem exceções. Como não há ferramentas semelhantes entre os irmãos, a falta de exclusões não é prejudicial.

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 indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context about the response structure (authenticated flag, pending array) and how it varies based on connection state, going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful detail about behavior. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Without an output schema, the description explains the key return scenarios and fields. It could be slightly more detailed about the structure of pending[] or URLs, but for a zero-parameter status tool with strong annotations, it is sufficient.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters and does not add any, which is appropriate.

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 ('returns') and resource ('connection status and URLs'). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than the act of authenticating.

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 clear contextual usage by explaining what happens in different states (all providers connected vs. credentials missing). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses crucial behaviors: invoke works even when MCP is not installed, returns a connect link when credentials are needed, returns a checkout link when wallet is empty, and writes require workspace owner/admin. It also explains installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace flags. 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 long but information-dense. Every sentence adds value, covering core flows, edge cases, permissions, and the prompt library. It is front-loaded with the central purpose and then expands logically, though it could benefit from clearer section breaks between the MCP marketplace and prompt library.

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 tool with 23 parameters, no output schema, and a wide action set, the description is remarkably complete. It explains discovery, invocation, installation, billing, permissions, credential handling, and the prompt library. It covers edge cases like connect links and checkout links, and describes the difference between one-off and permanent installation.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It covers the key ones: action, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, prompt_body, prompt_slug, etc., by associating them with actions. It does not explain every parameter (e.g., tier_slug, immediate, cancel_reason) but adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 what the tool is: 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It uses a specific verb (catalog + run) and identifies the resource (MCPs/tools). It distinguishes itself from siblings by covering the full discovery-to-invocation flow.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'. It also explains the core flow (search → describe → invoke), when to use subscribe/cancel, report_bug, and request_mcp, and contrasts with list_tools ('lists what is callable right now').

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 indicate a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context about including the conversation array for reproduction, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or what happens after submission. This is acceptable given the 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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and contains no fluff. The usage hint is brief and relevant.

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 3-string no-output tool, the description gives an adequate overall purpose and one usage instruction. However, it omits parameter-level guidance for 'message' and 'context' and does not mention what response or outcome to expect.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only addresses the 'conversation' parameter indirectly, telling the user to include recent messages, while 'message' and 'context' are left unexplained. This is insufficient for a 3-parameter tool with no 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 clearly states the tool reports a bug, missing feature, or feedback, using a specific action verb and resource. It is distinct from the unrelated sibling tools, so no additional differentiation is needed.

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 when to use the tool by naming its purposes (bug, missing feature, feedback), and gives a concrete usage hint to include the conversation array. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated and no alternative reporting tool exists.

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 tool's safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., error handling or fallback behavior), but it is fully consistent with the annotations, warranting a mid-range score.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant language. It is perfectly sized for a tool with no parameters and a straightforward 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?

For a version-retrieval tool with zero parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description provides complete context. There is nothing missing or ambiguous.

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 zero parameters, the description does not need to explain any. The schema fully covers the empty parameter space, so the baseline score of 4 is appropriate, even though the description itself provides no extra parameter information.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and names the exact resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), making the tool's function unmistakable. It easily distinguishes this from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which serve different purposes.

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 when to use the tool (whenever version information is needed) but provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or references to alternatives. For such a simple tool, this is acceptable but lacks the explicit guidance that would merit a higher score.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating exactly what state information is returned (MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool count), going beyond the generic annotation.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core function ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then appends the specific details. Every word contributes meaning; no filler 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 zero-parameter read-only info tool, the description fully specifies the return content (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). There is no output schema, but the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what it will receive. No major gaps.

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 description need not clarify any parameter semantics. Per the rubric, this earns a baseline of 4; the description correctly avoids mentioning parameters that do not exist.

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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' and pinpoints the exact resource ('current toolkit state') along with concrete components: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate 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 implies this tool is for inspecting toolkit state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., show_version for version info) or provide any exclusions. The guidance is only implicit through the listed return values.

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