CNPJ

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

Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive. Description explains token handling and session/permanent behavior. No contradictions.

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, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose. Efficient 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?

Covers main usage scenarios. No output schema, but description suffices. Complete enough for a simple authentication 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?

Only one parameter 'token', description explains its purpose for session login. Schema coverage 0%, so description adds necessary meaning.

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 for authentication, explaining token-based login for IDE agents. It distinguishes two methods: config-based permanent and session-only paste.

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 config vs pasting, and calling with no args to get link. Does not compare to sibling tools, but siblings are unrelated.

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, destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by listing return fields and noting it's free, but does not add behavioral details beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Description is a single sentence with a useful fragment. Front-loaded with verb and resource, no wasted words. Could be slightly more structured, but 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?

For a simple tool with 1 param and no output schema, description lists return fields and provides usage context. Lacks parameter format guidance, but overall complete for basic operation.

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%, but description does not clarify expected format of 'cnpj' (e.g., masked vs raw digits, required length). Parameter name alone is insufficient for agents to invoke correctly without assumptions.

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 states verb ('consulta') and specific resource ('cadastral de um CNPJ'), listing key data fields (razão social, sócios, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling 'cnpj_processos' by mentioning its utility before searching lawsuits.

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?

Description implies usage context: 'Útil pra identificar a empresa e seus sócios antes de buscar processos' indicates when to use this tool relative to the sibling. No explicit when-not-to-use, 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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds valuable context: it's free, resolves CNPJ to legal name and partners, searches DJEN, and provides complete process numbers. 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?

Description is concise (one paragraph, three sentences) with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the key function ('DESCOBERTA por CNPJ'). Every 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?

Comprehensive for a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema. Covers input, optional behavior, output elements (complete process numbers), and next steps (enrichment with datajud). Minor gap: no error handling or format specifications for CNPJ.

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 0% parameter descriptions. The description explains both parameters: 'cnpj' is implied in 'resolve o CNPJ' and 'incluir_socios' is clarified as optional inclusion of partner processes. Adds meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool resolves a CNPJ into a legal name and partners, searches for processes by name in DJEN, provides complete process numbers, and optionally includes partner processes. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cnpj_consultar' by specifying the process search aspect.

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 context on when to use (resolving CNPJ and searching processes) and optional behavior (include socios). Offers post-usage guidance to enrich with datajud tools. Does not explicitly exclude alternative tools but implies appropriate use.

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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context about return values in different states (authenticated:true vs connect URLs), enhancing transparency 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?

Two sentences only, no wasted words. Front-loaded with key purpose and immediately explains conditional behavior. Highly concise.

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 fully explains the tool's behavior and return values in all scenarios. Complete for this simple 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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4 per instructions. The description adds no parameter info but compensates by explaining the output, which is relevant for a parameterless tool.

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, and explains behavior under different conditions (all connected vs missing credentials). It distinguishes from sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status 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 usage for checking connection status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like 'authenticate'. No exclusions or alternative guidance 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?

With only basic annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), the description carries the transparency burden and excels. It discloses that 'invoke works even when the MCP is NOT installed — it runs the tool pontualmente, without adding the MCP to the toolkit and without bloating the tool list.' It also explains returned connect/checkout links, permission requirements ('Writes... require workspace owner/admin'), and installed flags. No annotation contradiction 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 a single dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses visual labels like 'Core flow:' and 'KEY:' to structure the key information. Every sentence provides meaningful content, and the length is justified given the 14 actions and multiple edge cases. Minor deduction for lack of formal structure (bullets/headings) that would improve scannability.

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 no output schema, the description explains return behaviors for key actions (e.g., invoke returns a connect link or checkout link, describe returns the full profile, publish_prompt returns a shareable link). It covers permissions, installed status flags, billing, prompt library differences, and the distinction between one-off invoke and permanent install. This is complete for a tool of this 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?

Schema coverage is 0% with 23 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the central 'action' values and how mcp_id, tool_id, and arguments work together in the search → describe → invoke flow. It also explains prompt-related parameters (prompt_slug, prompt_body, prompt_vars, prompt_targets) through search_prompts/get_prompt/publish_prompt. However, several parameters remain unexplained (limit, query, immediate, tier_slug, conversation, cancel_reason, etc.), so it does not fully cover the 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 states it is 'the official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' This clearly identifies the resource and primary functions (search, describe, invoke, install), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cnpj_consultar which are specific MCPs. It also differentiates itself by covering both MCP discovery and execution.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each action: 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use.' It also explains the conditions for connecting/credential links and wallet top-up, and notes 'request_mcp asks us to build a NEW MCP when nothing fits.' This goes far beyond a generic usage hint.

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 idempotent and non-destructive; description confirms a write operation (report) without contradiction. Adds context about conversation requirement.

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, no fluff. Front-loads purpose immediately.

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?

Minimal but adequate for a simple bug report tool. Missing description for 'context' parameter and any return/error info. Output schema absent.

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 0% description coverage. Description only mentions 'conversation' array, leaving 'context' and 'message' unexplained. Insufficient detail for three 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?

Clearly states 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' Differentiates from siblings which are unrelated like authenticate or 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?

Explicitly says to include the conversation array for reproduction, guiding when to use. No alternatives given, 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description's claim of 'show current versions' is consistent but adds minimal extra insight beyond confirming it is a safe read operation.

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 single sentence with no extraneous words. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with no parameters and a clear purpose, the description fully covers what the tool does. An output schema is not critical for this version info 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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 ('show') and resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate or 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 for version retrieval but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings. The context makes it obvious, but no exclusion criteria 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, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the exact behavioral output (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the generic 'returns state' assumption. No contradictions or missing disclosures are evident.

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 starts with the verb 'Returns' and then lists the specific informational components in a structured manner. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or 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, read-only info tool with no parameters and rich annotations, the description fully captures the purpose and return value. It tells the agent exactly what to expect, and the annotations cover safety and idempotency. Nothing critical is missing.

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 the schema is fully self-explanatory with no properties to describe. The description does not attempt to introduce parameters, and since there are none, the baseline of 4 applies. It would be inappropriate to score higher because there's nothing to add beyond the 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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly enumerates the exact contents of the toolkit state: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This makes it distinct from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect' which deal with authentication and connection setup, not state inspection.

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 this tool: whenever you need an overview of the current toolkit state, including installed MCPs and their statuses. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as 'use connect to establish a new connection' — it only describes what it returns.

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