Conselho Federal de Odontologia: Cadastro

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint: true and destructiveHint: false, which aligns with the description. The description adds context about the two auth methods and the permanent nature of the config-based token. It doesn't contradict annotations. However, it could disclose what happens on repeated calls or failure states.

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 packs a lot of information into three sentences without being verbose. Slightly dense with instructions but organized with a colon and comma-separated options.

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 (0 required params, only 1 optional, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the main use cases well. It explains the two authentication paths and the no-arg behavior. Could mention what the return value is but that's minor.

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 compensates by explaining the 'token' field is a JWT and how to use it. It also explains no-arg behavior. Slight deduction because it doesn't specify token format beyond '<jwt>' or error handling, but given only one optional param, it's well-handled.

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 copying an access token. It specifies the resource (MCP.AI) and the action (authenticate/login).

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 when to use this tool (to log in) and gives two methods (permanent via config header or session-only via token argument). However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but sibling tools don't seem to overlap, and the guidance is quite detailed for authentication flow.

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?

Além das anotações que já indicam readOnlyHint, idempotentHint e destructiveHint falsos, a descrição agrega informações comportamentais relevantes: é pago por consulta, não requer credenciais da plataforma, fornece dados públicos oficiais e impõe responsabilidade LGPD ao cliente. Não contradiz as anotações.

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 descrição é compacta, com frase inicial direta sobre a definição principal e frases seguintes agregando valor operacional e legal. Nenhuma frase é redundante ou desnecessária.

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 um tool de consulta simples com 3 parâmetros opcionais, anotações de segurança e sem fluxo complexo, a descrição cobre o essencial: fonte, forma de acesso, pagamento, dados devolvidos, status público e responsabilidade legal. Falta apenas explicar o que retorna e como os parâmetros devem ser combinados, mas não compromete criticamente o contexto geral.

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?

A cobertura de descrição pelo schema é 0% e os parâmetros (uf, nome, inscricao) não têm descrição individual nem na descrição. O texto não explica formatos esperados, combinações obrigatórias ou como os parâmetros relacionam-se à consulta. Como a cobertura é baixa, a descrição deveria compensar, mas não compensa.

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 deixa claro que a ferramenta consulta dados cadastrais no Conselho Federal de Odontologia em fonte oficial, com verbo específico ('consulta') e recurso bem delimitado ('Cadastro'). Também diferencia de outras ferramentas utilitárias (authenticate, connect, report_bug, etc.), não havendo ambiguidade sobre sua finalidade.

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 orienta claramente sobre o contexto de uso: consulta a fonte oficial, sem credenciais da plataforma, com pagamento pré-pago por consulta. Não há exclusões explícitas nem menção a ferramentas alternativas, mas o contexto de uso é suficientemente claro.

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, but the description adds valuable conditional behavior: when all providers are connected it returns authenticated:true and empty pending[], and when credentials are missing it returns connect_url. This gives the agent a clear model of expected response states.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first phrase and uses two compact, information-dense sentences. Every clause adds meaningful behavior, 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully specifies the relevant return values and conditions. The tool is simple, parameterless, and backed by clear annotations, so the description covers all necessary context for an agent to 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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. Baseline is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output behavior instead of inventing 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 opens with 'Returns connection status and URLs,' specifying a concrete verb and resource. It also details the two main outcome states, clearly distinguishing this status-checking tool from siblings like authenticate or toolkit_info.

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 alternatives or exclusions are named, but the description clearly implies this tool is for checking connection status and seeing pending authentication URLs. It does not offer direct guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools, so it falls at implied usage rather than explicit 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 goes beyond annotations by disclosing that invoke can run MCPs even if not installed, mentions auth handling (returns a connect link if credentials needed, checkout link if wallet empty), and states write operations require owner/admin permissions. This adds valuable context about side effects and prerequisites, aligning with the annotation's readOnlyHint=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 long single paragraph without breaks or bullet points. It covers extensive ground but lacks front-loading and structure, making it harder for an agent to quickly parse. The length is justified by complexity, but it could be organized better.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description covers the main use cases (discovery, execution, installation, billing, prompt library), explains auth and payment edge cases, and describes permissions. It does not specify return formats, but the tool is action-dependent and returns vary; the description provides enough 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?

While the schema has 23 parameters with 0% description coverage, the description explains the core action parameter and the main tool-specific parameters (mcp_id, tool_id, arguments) through the flow. However, many parameters (limit, query, immediate, tier_slug, prompt_*) are not explicitly described, relying on inference from the action names. Given the low coverage, this is a partial compensation.

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, listing its functions and distinguishing the main flow (search, describe, invoke) from alternatives like install. It states the tool covers capability requests and provides specific actions, making it distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or 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?

Explicit guidance is given on when to use invoke vs install ('prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'), and it explains the purpose of each action (subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, etc.). It also covers the prompt library and its separate search/get/publish actions, ensuring the agent knows when to use which.

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 idempotent=true, readOnly=false, destructive=false. The description adds context about including conversation for reproduction, which goes beyond annotations without contradicting them. It doesn't describe side effects but annotations cover non-destructiveness.

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 brief and to the point, two sentences with no redundant information. It conveys the essential purpose and a key usage detail efficiently.

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 bug-reporting tool, the description provides sufficient context for usage. It doesn't specify return values, but no output schema exists and the action is one-way feedback submission, so this is acceptable. It could mention expected side effects (e.g., ticket creation) but is not critical.

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 has no parameter descriptions, and the description only partially compensates. It mentions including the conversation array but does not explain the 'message' (required) or 'context' parameters. Coverage is insufficient for a clear understanding of each parameter.

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: reporting bugs, missing features, or sending feedback. It is specific and distinct from typical 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?

It explicitly indicates when to use the tool (for bug reports, missing features, feedback) and provides a specific instruction to include the conversation array for reproduction, which is a clear usage guideline.

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 provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the purpose (showing versions). It is consistent with annotations and provides the expected safe, read-only behavior, but adds no extra transparency details.

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 of nine words, front-loading the verb 'Show' and immediately clarifying scope ('MCP platform and adapter versions'). No unnecessary words or structure.

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 parameters, no output schema, and a trivial purpose, the description is complete. There is no missing information that would prevent an agent from using 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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. The baseline of 4 applies per rubric, and the description is consistent with the empty 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 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools. It precisely states what the tool does without ambiguity.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose—users would call this when they need version information. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of alternatives. Adequate but not explicit.

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 claim readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the exact data returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which would otherwise be unknown since there is no output schema. It aligns with the read-only/idempotent annotations and does not contradict 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, front-loaded sentence that enumerates the tool's output without redundant words or repetition. Every phrase ('installed MCPs', 'connection status', 'accounts connected', 'how many catalog tools') adds 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only introspection tool with full annotation coverage, the description is sufficiently complete. There is no output schema, so specifying the exact return contents is essential and fully handled here. The tool's low complexity means no additional prerequisites or caveats are needed.

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 schema coverage is effectively 100%, so there is nothing to document. Per rubric, 0-param tools receive a baseline of 4; the description sensibly omits parameter details 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Returns' with a precise resource ('current toolkit state') and enumerates the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like show_version (version info) and marketplace (marketplace listing).

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as show_version or connect. There are no when-to-use/when-not-to-use instructions or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the content.

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