CNPJ

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

Annotations indicate non-destructive and idempotent operations. Description adds that using the config header yields a permanent connection, while passing token yields session-only login. Does not contradict annotations. Missing details on return value, but overall transparent.

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?

Three sentences, each adding unique value. Front-loaded with purpose. 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?

Lacks output schema and does not describe return value (e.g., success/error). Missing prerequisites (e.g., browser needed). For a complex authentication flow, more detail would help. But context signals show few parameters and 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?

Schema has one optional parameter 'token' with no description. The description explains it is a JWT obtained from browser for session-only login, and behavior when omitted. Adds meaning beyond schema, but lacks format or validation 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 this tool is for authentication (login) and specifies the resource (access token, JWT). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cnpj_consultar' or 'report_bug' which are unrelated.

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: for logging in. Details two methods: permanent via config header or session-only by passing the token. Also explains behavior with no arguments (returns link). No alternatives mentioned, but context is clear.

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 readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds value by listing returned data fields but does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits or auth requirements.

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 sentences, front-loaded with key information, 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?

Given 1 parameter, no output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, data returned, and usage context. Missing parameter format details, but overall adequate for a simple query tool.

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 coverage is 0% and the description only mentions 'CNPJ' without specifying format (e.g., numbers only, with/without punctuation). It adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 it's a registration query for a CNPJ, listing specific fields returned (razão social, nome fantasia, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tool 'cnpj_processos' by noting it's useful before searching for processes.

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 says 'Útil pra identificar a empresa e seus sócios antes de buscar processos', providing clear context for when to use (before process search). It implicitly differentiates from 'cnpj_processos' but lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements.

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 indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that the tool is free, resolves CNPJ, and searches DJEN. It does not contradict annotations and provides extra behavioral context like cost and search scope.

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 long, front-loaded with core functionality, and every sentence adds value. There is no wasted text.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and complex functionality, the description covers the main operations and optional behavior. It mentions the output (complete process numbers) and suggests next steps. Could be slightly more detailed about return format, but 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 description explains that 'cnpj' is the input and 'incluir_socios' optionally includes partners' processes. This adds meaning to the parameters given the schema has 0% description coverage. The description compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 resolves a CNPJ into corporate name and partners, and searches for legal processes by name in the DJEN. It specifies the verb 'resolve' and 'busca' and identifies the resources, distinguishing it from siblings like cnpj_consultar.

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 guidance on when to use the tool (to get process numbers from CNPJ lookup) and suggests enrichment with datajud tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with siblings like cnpj_consultar.

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 and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context by detailing return values in different states (all connected vs missing credentials), which goes beyond 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 main purpose, and covers key scenarios without verbosity. Slightly more conciseness could be possible but it's effective.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the two return states. It does not mention authentication or side effects, but annotations cover those aspects.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info; it correctly focuses on the output behavior.

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 connection status and URLs, with specific scenarios for all providers connected or missing credentials. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' which likely handles authentication, not 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 implies usage for checking connection status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'authenticate'. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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 readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context that writes require workspace owner/admin, and that search results flag installed status. This goes beyond 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a bullet-like structure for actions. It is informative but slightly verbose; some sentences could be condensed. Overall, it is well-organized and each sentence adds 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?

Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, no output schema, multiple actions), the description covers actions, usage context, admin requirements, and result flags. It is fairly complete, though individual parameter descriptions would improve it further.

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 13 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explicitly describe each parameter but explains the actions and some fields (e.g., limit, query). For a tool with many parameters, this provides partial but insufficient detail for complete understanding.

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 explicitly states that this tool is the official mcp.ai marketplace for managing MCPs/tools. It clearly enumerates multiple actions (search, describe, install, etc.) and distinguishes it from external registries, achieving high specificity.

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 when-to-use guidance: use action=search FIRST before any external registry. It also lists specific use cases for each action, such as using install/uninstall for toolkit management and list_tools/invoke for execution without client refresh.

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 idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that; it does not explain side effects, such as whether a ticket is created or what happens on repeated 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 a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not front-load the core action or systematically list parts. It is adequate but not optimally structured.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no param descriptions, the description is incomplete. It instructs to include a conversation array but does not cover error conditions, response expectations, or complete parameter 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?

Schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning for the 'conversation' parameter but not for 'message' or 'context'. It does not explain the role of these parameters in 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 the tool's purpose: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It includes a specific verb ('report') and resource ('bug, missing feature, feedback'), which distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate and cnpj_consultar.

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 usage by instructing to include a conversation array for reproduction, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Siblings are mostly unrelated, 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds detail about what versions are shown but no additional behavioral traits like error handling or availability.

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?

Single sentence conveying all necessary information without extraneous 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description fully captures what the tool does. No gaps for the 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?

No parameters, so description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline 4 applies per guidelines.

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 specifies the action (show) and resource (MCP platform and adapter versions). No sibling tool has overlapping purpose.

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 alternatives mentioned, but the tool's simplicity makes usage obvious. Lacks guidance on when to prefer this over other tools.

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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context about the returned state (installed MCPs, connection status, catalog tools count), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the entire purpose and output without any waste. Every word 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 zero parameters, no output schema, and safety annotations covering risk, the description provides sufficient details about what the tool returns (three specific aspects of state). It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's output without being overly verbose.

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 (100% coverage). Per the scoring guidelines, this yields a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter information since none 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 a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies a precise resource ('current toolkit state') with concrete details (installed MCPs, connection status, catalog tools count). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'cnpj_consultar' which have 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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. While the purpose is clear, the agent is left without guidance on context.

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