Cadastur: Prestadores

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

Annotations include idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, indicating a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the two login modes, that the config method is permanent and non-expiring, and the token can be pasted directly—information beyond annotations. It does not contradict annotations, so no penalty, and it adds value by clarifying the auth flow.

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 concise, with key information front-loaded ('log in in the browser, copy the access token') and clear instructions. It is a bit dense with multiple clauses and could be more structured, but every sentence adds value, so it earns a high score.

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 tool is authentication, which is complex due to external browser interaction. The description covers the workflow, permanent vs session options, and the alternative of using config. It lacks explicit return format (no output schema), but since the action is primarily UI-driven, this is acceptable. The tool is simpler than some, but the description 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 schema has one optional 'token' parameter with 0% coverage, meaning the description alone must explain its purpose. The description does so by stating 'token: "<jwt>"' for session-only login, clarifying the parameter's role. The lack of required params and the absence of detailed syntax are minor, but the description compensates reasonably.

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 that the tool is for authentication, specifically for logging in via browser and obtaining an access token, with two distinct usage modes (permanent via config header, session-only via token argument). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' by focusing on token-based auth rather than a general connection.

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 explicitly explains when to use each method: paste token for session-only, add to config for permanent, and call with no args to get the login link. This provides clear guidance on alternatives and context, which is rare and highly effective.

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 several behavioral aspects beyond the annotations, such as the requirement for prepaid credits, the fact that the data is not confidential, and the legal responsibility under LGPD. It also confirms the read-only nature implicitly through the term 'consulta'.

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 somewhat verbose and repetitive, with similar phrases about official sources appearing twice. It also includes legal jargon (LGPD) that may not be essential for explaining the tool's function. However, it is not excessively long and covers key points.

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 does not explain the expected output or any error conditions, nor does it specify how the parameters should be used together (e.g., whether both are always required or if one alone is sufficient). It also lacks information about the response structure or potential limitations, making it incomplete for a comprehensive understanding.

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 description provides no explanation of the parameter meanings or formats. The schema lists 'uf' and 'cnpj' with only their types and required status, but the description does not clarify that 'uf' likely refers to a Brazilian state code and 'cnpj' to a company registration number, nor does it explain any combination rules or input constraints.

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 that this tool consults official Brazilian sources for Cadastur provider data. It distinguishes itself from other tools by specifying the domain (Cadastur) and the nature of the operation (query/consultation).

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 mentions that it requires prepaid credits and operates without platform credentials, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for verifying provider registration status or when official data is needed). No clear usage conditions or exclusions are stated.

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, so the description adds value by explaining conditional behavior (e.g., authenticated:true and empty pending[] vs. connect_url when credentials are missing). This gives the agent insight into edge cases without contradicting 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-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence provides distinct, useful information. No wasteful phrases or repetition of schema/annotation data.

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 status tool with no parameters and an output schema absent, the description covers key states (all connected, missing credentials) and mentions return fields like authenticated, pending, and connect_url. It could be slightly more explicit about partial connection states, but the overall context 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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so description has no parameter burden. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details.

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: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It provides specific details about the response under different conditions, distinguishing it from siblings like 'authenticate' which likely initiates a connection rather than checking status.

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 for when the tool is appropriate—checking connection status before or after authentication—by describing output scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list suggests 'authenticate' is for initiating connections, so usage is implied.

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 important behavioral traits: invoke runs a tool one-off without adding it to the toolkit, missing credentials produce a connect link, empty wallets produce a checkout link, and writes require workspace owner/admin. It also states that search/describe flag installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace, giving the agent useful runtime expectations. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 the tool is genuinely complex with 14 action values and 23 parameters. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then walks through the main flow and key edge cases, then covers secondary actions and the prompt library. The lack of formatting/bullets makes it dense, but nearly every sentence adds necessary operational context.

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 high complexity, no output schema, and no per-parameter descriptions in the schema, the description provides strong coverage of workflows, return-link behaviors, permission requirements, and the prompt-library subcommands. It still omits details for some actions (notably 'resume'), and does not describe expected result shapes for list_tools or install, leaving some ambiguity for an autonomous agent.

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 and does so substantially for the central 'action' parameter, plus tool_id, arguments, prompt_slug, prompt_vars, and prompt_body through the narrated workflows. It does not annotate every one of the 23 parameters (e.g., immediate, conversation, resume action), so compensation is strong but not exhaustive.

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 the mcp.ai marketplace and enumerates its functions: discovering, describing, invoking, installing, billing, and prompt-library operations. It is specific about the resource and scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as report_bug or connect, so it lacks the full sibling-contrast that would earn a 5.

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 a concrete core flow ('action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns ... → invoke RUNS that tool') and clear decision guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT.' It also explains when to use request_mcp, subscribe/cancel, and prompt functions, providing strong when-to-use versus alternative guidance.

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 adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations; it implies a write operation but doesn't detail side effects. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent. The instruction about the conversation array adds some usage context but not deep behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundancy; the purpose is front-loaded and the usage hint is specific. Every word earns its place, making it an efficient and well-structured description.

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 bug-report tool, it covers the purpose and key input guidance, but lacks explanation for the 'context' parameter and does not mention any response or side effects beyond the action. It is adequate but not thorough, especially given 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?

The description explains the 'conversation' parameter as an array of recent messages for reproduction and implies 'message' as the bug text, but 'context' remains unexplained. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by giving meaning to two of the three parameters, but not fully.

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 'Report' and the targets 'bug, missing feature, or feedback'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'authenticate' and 'marketplace' which serve different functions.

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 context on what the tool is for (reporting bugs/feedback) and instructs to include the conversation array for reproduction. However, it doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, though sibling tools are unrelated, so the guidance is adequate.

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 annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description is consistent and adds no conflicting information, so transparency is fully covered.

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 extremely concise and to the point, containing exactly the necessary information without any fluff.

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 that the tool has no parameters and a simple output (versions), the description is complete. There is no missing context that would hinder usage.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description is sufficient and requires no additional parameter explanations.

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 shows the current MCP platform and adapter versions, specifying the verb 'show' and the resource 'versions', which is unambiguous and distinguishes it from the sibling tools.

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 is obvious when to use this tool: whenever the user wants to know the versions of the MCP platform and adapters. No alternative usage is needed for such a simple informational tool.

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, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds specific behavioral details about what information is returned (MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts), which supplements 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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the main verb 'Returns', and efficiently lists the key information items. No wasted words.

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 tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema), and the description covers what the tool returns. It might benefit from mentioning whether any authentication is required or how to interpret connection statuses, but given the simplicity, it's adequate.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it does add value by describing the output contents. Since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 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 states 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates specific contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts connected, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, connect, and show_version, which presumably perform different actions.

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 is a diagnostic/informational tool for inspecting the toolkit's current state. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, but given siblings like authenticate and connect, the context is clear. It could be improved by stating when to use it, but the purpose is evident.

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