Conselho Nacional de Justiça: Serventias Extrajudiciais (Detalhes)

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with. The description adds context about the two modes (permanent vs session-only) and the need for browser interaction, which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like token expiration or security considerations, but given the annotations, this is adequate.

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 main purpose. It packs a lot of information into two sentences, but the second sentence is a bit dense with multiple clauses. Still, it's efficient and earns its place.

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 (1 optional param, no output schema), the description covers the essential usage modes and setup. It doesn't explain return values, but since there's no output schema, that's acceptable. The description is complete enough 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 'token' parameter as a JWT to paste for session-only login, and mentions calling with no args to get the link. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, but it doesn't fully detail the token format or validation, so a 3 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: to authenticate the user by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on authentication, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'connect' or other 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 provides explicit usage scenarios: permanent setup via config header vs. session-only login by pasting token, and calling with no args to get the link. It clearly instructs when to use each approach, which is excellent 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?

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, but the description adds transparency about payment per query, absence of platform credentials, and adherence to LGPD for data handling. This goes beyond the annotations, clarifying side effects and data governance.

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 repetitive (e.g., 'consulta em fonte oficial' and 'Consulta informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais') and includes legal boilerplate that could be condensed. It is not overly long but lacks streamlined 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?

While the description provides context about payment and data processing, it does not specify the expected output format, error handling, or parameter details. This leaves significant gaps for a query tool, making it incomplete for robust agent 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 single parameter 'cns' has no description in the schema or in the tool description. Its meaning and format are entirely ambiguous, making it impossible for an agent to correctly supply the value without prior knowledge.

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 queries details of extrajudicial services from the official CNJ source, using the verb 'consultar' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect' by its focus on data retrieval.

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 lacks explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions payment and official sources but does not provide conditions or examples for appropriate usage, leaving the decision to the agent.

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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: it specifies conditional return values (authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected, connect_url and per-install URLs when credentials are missing), which is beyond the annotations and helps agents understand expected output.

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 adds distinct information (general behavior + conditional details). No filler or repetition.

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 tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return values and the conditional logic. It covers the two main scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials) and indicates the structure of URLs. Given the simplicity and annotation support, this is 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 zero parametersaine a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist. It does provide context about the response structure, which is useful for understanding what the tool returns.

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 does: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It identifies the resource (connection status) and the result format, distinguishing itself from siblings like `authenticate` by focusing on status checking rather than performing authentication.

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 it – to check connection status and retrieve URLs when credentials are missing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like `authenticate` for initiating authentication. The contextual clarity is good but lacks explicit 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?

The description discloses key behaviors beyond the annotations: invoke runs one-off even when the MCP is not installed, connect/checkout links are returned in specific conditions, and writes require workspace owner/admin. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 and dense but every sentence carries substantive guidance, front-loading the core value and then organizing by flow, install-vs-invoke, auth, and prompt library. Bullet formatting would improve scannability, but the length is justified by 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?

The description covers almost all 14 actions, auth requirements, failure/retry cases, and the prompt-library subsystem, which is strong given the absence of an output schema. Minor gaps remain around exact return values for list_tools, subscribe, and cancel actions.

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 does map several actions to their key parameters (invoke → tool_id/arguments, get_prompt → prompt_vars, publish_prompt → prompt_body). However, many remaining parameters (immediate, tier_slug, conversation, prompt_targets, cancel_reason, report_context, etc.) are not explained, leaving 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 marketplace as the official mcp.ai catalog and execution engine, with a concrete core flow: search → describe → invoke. It also distinguishes the prompt-library actions and does not merely restate the tool name.

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: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'. It also explains when list_tools is appropriate, when invoke returns connect/checkout links, and the retry 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?

Annotations already declare the tool as non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds the useful detail that a conversation array should be included for reproduction, but it does not explain what happens after submission (e.g., whether a ticket is created) or how idempotency applies to repeated identical reports.

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 short sentences: the first states purpose, the second gives a critical usage instruction. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no redundant or filler content.

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 relatively simple, but with no output schema and no per-parameter schema descriptions, the description leaves gaps: it does not clarify the expected JSON string format for 'conversation', the role of 'context', or what the tool returns. It is usable but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'conversation' parameter, calls it an 'array' while the schema types it as a string (likely JSON-encoded), which could mislead an agent. It provides no guidance for the required 'message' parameter or the optional 'context' 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 uses a specific verb ('Report'/'send') with clear resources ('bug, missing feature, or feedback') and is distinct from all sibling tools, none of which handle bug reporting or feedback submission.

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 first sentence explicitly states the use cases: report a bug, request a missing feature, or send feedback. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool overlaps with this purpose, so the intended usage is unambiguous.

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, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context by specifying that both platform and adapter versions are shown, which goes beyond a mere status check.

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 wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately readable.

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, parameter-less, read-only tool with complete annotations and no output schema, the description fully satisfies what an agent needs to know. There is no missing complexity or hidden side effects.

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 already provides complete coverage (100%). The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for a no-parameter tool 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 verb ('Show') and the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, none of which relate to version 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?

The purpose implies when to use it (when needing version information), and no sibling tool offers version details, so the context is clear. However, there is no explicit statement about when not to use it or alternative tools, which would merit 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds detail on the content returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which adds value beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose potential caveats like rate limits or stale data, but given annotations, the bar is met.

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 that front-loads the primary action ('Returns') and lists specific result items. Every word is informative with no 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 the tool has no parameters, uses annotations for safety, and has no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It fully covers the expected output for a simple info tool, making it complete for its complexity.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter info since there are none, but there is nothing to add. Thus the score 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 returns current toolkit state, listing specific details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It uses specific verbs and resource, and is distinct from 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It simply describes what it does without mentioning when it should be invoked, when not, or prerequisites. For a read-only info tool, usage is likely obvious, but the description lacks explicit context.

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