Certidão de Débitos PF

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

Annotations already signal readonly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false. The description adds valuable details about the two auth flows (config-based and session-based) and the behavior of returning a link when called with no arguments. This goes beyond basic annotation coverage.

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 and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It uses clear sentences to explain both permanent and session-based auth. It is slightly dense but every sentence adds essential 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 simple schema and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality: authentication flow, token usage, and session vs. permanent options. It does not detail return values, but for a login tool the main outcome is implied.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains the 'token' parameter: it is an optional JWT used for session-only login, and calling without it returns a link. This compensates completely for the schema's lack of 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 states this is an authentication tool for IDE agents, with specific instructions on browser login and token handling. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'connect', so it falls short of 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?

Provides clear context on how to use the tool: adding a token to config for permanent access, or pasting it for session-only login. It also explains calling with no args to get a link. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives.

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 this: it discloses the billing model ('pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago'), clarifies that the data is public and not sensitive ('ACESSO PÚBLICO', 'não é dado privado nem sigiloso'), and mentions LGPD compliance responsibilities. These are meaningful behavioral traits not apparent from annotations alone.

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 four-sentence paragraph with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by operational and legal details. Each sentence provides distinct information, but the LGPD clause adds length that is only marginally relevant for an AI agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.

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 tool without an output schema, the description covers purpose, hosting, payment, and data classification. However, it omits the meaning of the 'completo' parameter and does not describe the return value or response format, which is a notable gap given the lack of an 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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only mentions 'a partir do CPF' to identify the main required parameter. The optional 'completo' boolean parameter is completely unexplained, leaving its purpose and allowed values ambiguous. The description should have compensated for the schema gap but fails to document one of the two parameters.

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 opens with 'Emite a certidão conjunta de débitos federais de uma pessoa física a partir do CPF', which precisely states the action (emits), the resource (joint federal debt certificate), and the scope (individual person via CPF). This clearly differentiates it from the unrelated sibling tools like authenticate and marketplace.

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 operational context: 'Hospedado pela plataforma, sem credenciais, pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago' explains the authentication model and pay-per-query requirement. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but since the sibling tools are unrelated, none are necessary.

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 (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses specific behavioral outputs: 'authenticated:true and empty pending[]' when connected, and 'connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs' when credentials are missing. This adds valuable context about response contents.

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 action, and every sentence provides meaningful detail without 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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains the tool's behavior by covering both possible outcomes (all connected vs. missing credentials). It is complete for the tool's scope.

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 is not required to explain parameter semantics. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' This is a specific verb-resource pairing and distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'authenticate', which presumably performs authentication rather than status checking.

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 for when to use the tool: to check if all providers are connected or to retrieve connect URLs when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is evident from the context.

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 key behaviors beyond annotations: invoke runs one-off without installing, returns connect/checkout links, and requires owner/admin for writes. It explains the distinction between installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace and details the prompt library behavior. This adds substantial context beyond the sparse 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 structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value, explaining flow, exceptions, and the prompt library. While dense, it earns its length given the tool's complexity.

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 high complexity (14 actions, 23 params, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete: it covers the core flow, credential/payment edge cases, auth requirements, and the prompt library. It does not exhaustively describe every return value, but it covers most user-facing outcomes.

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 compensates by explaining the semantics of core parameters like action, mcp_id, tool_id, and arguments through the described flow. It also discusses prompt-related parameters implicitly. However, many parameters (limit, query, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, etc.) remain unexplained, so it doesn't fully cover all 23 parameters.

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 is the official mcp.ai marketplace: the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool and the way to run them. It uses specific action verbs like 'search', 'describe', 'invoke', and 'install', and differentiates from sibling tools by covering the entire marketplace lifecycle.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each action: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', and explains the core flow with action=search → describe → invoke. It also specifies when credentials or payment are needed and that writes require workspace owner/admin.

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 readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which establish the behavioral profile. The description adds the note that conversation should include recent messages for reproduction, which is helpful context but does not describe side effects, return values, or failure modes. This is consistent with the annotation-provided baseline.

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 tool's purpose, and contains no redundant or filler words. Every sentence earns its place by providing distinct 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?

With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description covers the core purpose and gives a key usage tip, but it omits what happens after reporting, how to use 'context', and any behavioral side effects. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but leaves noticeable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'conversation' parameter by instructing to include recent messages for reproduction, but it does not describe the required 'message' parameter or the optional 'context' parameter. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent, especially for 'context'.

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 'Report' and clearly identifies the resources: 'a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It is unambiguous and easily distinguishes this tool from the unrelated 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?

The description states explicit usage scenarios (bug, missing feature, feedback) and provides a practical instruction to include the conversation array for reproduction. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but no closely related siblings exist, so the guidance is sufficient.

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 the specific scope of versions displayed (MCP platform and adapter), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like output format or error behavior. 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 communicates the full purpose without any redundant wording or irrelevant details. It is appropriately sized for a simple information tool.

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 zero-parameter nature, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is fully complete for its simple informational role. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does, and the annotations cover safety, making this a complete package for selection and invocation.

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 takes zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The empty schema confirms this, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 ('Show') and the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It is highly specific and distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool or provide alternatives. However, the tool's purpose is obvious and its siblings are unrelated, so usage is clearly implied but not formally guided. No misleading or exclusionary information is present.

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 safety. The description adds valuable context about the exact return contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is beyond the structured 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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the key outputs. Every word contributes, with 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?

For a simple no-parameter read-only tool, the description fully explains what the tool returns. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the explicit list of content (MCPs, status, accounts, count of catalog tools), making it complete.

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 0 parameters, so per rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning since the input schema is empty and there are no parameters to document.

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 ('Returns') and clearly specifies the resource ('current toolkit state') and its contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like show_version 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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. However, the purpose is self-evident as a general status/read tool, so usage is implied rather than stated. Without exclusions or alternatives, it falls at the implied usage level.

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