Enel SP: Download

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds context about permanent versus session-only auth and the no-arg link behavior. However, it does not disclose what the tool returns or whether it stores/side-effects the pasted token beyond the session.

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 reasonably compact and front-loaded with the audience and purpose. It packs several usage modes into one sentence, which slightly hurts readability, but every clause adds useful 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?

The description covers the main invocation paths well, but with no output schema it omits what the tool returns (e.g., a link, success message, or error). Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of sibling tools like 'connect', this is a noticeable but not fatal gap.

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 gives 0% coverage for the optional 'token' parameter, but the description compensates by explaining exactly what values are expected: a JWT for session login, or omitted to receive an auth link. This is meaningful semantic detail beyond the bare 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 identifies authentication for the MCP server as the core function, explaining the login flow and token use. It goes beyond a simple verb+object statement, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'connect' tool.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use each path: adding the token to config for permanent access, pasting it for session-only login, or calling with no arguments to get the login link. It does not name alternatives/limits, but the instruction is practical and 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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint:true, idempotentHint:true, destructiveHint:false), the description discloses exact behavioral details: the response fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url) and how they vary by state. This adds significant value and does not contradict any annotation.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core function, and the second adds necessary conditional detail. There is 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?

Given the low complexity (zero parameters, no input schema), the description is complete enough. It explains the return values and covers the two key states: all providers connected and missing credentials. It also mentions both the toolkit-level and per-install URLs, which is important contextual information.

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 an empty input schema, so there is no parameter semantics to document. Per the rubric, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline of 4; the description appropriately focuses on behavior instead of 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's purpose: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It goes beyond a vague label by specifying the exact conditions and outputs (authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected; connect_url when credentials are missing). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, which presumably performs authentication rather than merely reporting status.

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 useful context for when the tool is relevant: checking whether all providers are connected or discovering missing credentials and connection URLs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state 'use this instead of authenticate,' so it lacks the explicit exclusions needed for 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns by framing the tool as a consult/download operation. It adds valuable context about hosting (no platform credentials needed), the payment model (prepaid credit per query), and legal compliance (LGPD), which are behavioral traits not in the 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 fairly concise at 3 sentences, but includes legal jargon (LGPD) and repetitive phrasing about the data being non-confidential and official. The core purpose is buried among compliance details, and the sentence about payment could be clearer.

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 annotations cover read-only/idempotent behavior well, so the description doesn't need to restate that. However, it omits expected outputs (what the bill download returns), the meaning of 'instalacao', and any error/edge cases. For a tool with no output schema, more specifics on the result format would improve completeness.

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, but it provides no explanation for login_email, login_senha, or instalacao. The mention of 'sem credenciais da plataforma' is confusing given the required login parameters, and 'instalacao' is never clarified. Users must guess what these parameters mean and their format.

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 download/consult information from Enel SP's official source (utility bills). It names the specific resource (Enel SP) and the action (consult), and implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace by focusing on a domain-specific query.

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 context on when the tool is appropriate (consulting official Brazilian sources, with prepaid credit) but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools. The payment model and data sensitivity notes give some guidance, but there's no direct comparison to siblings.

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 well beyond the annotations by disclosing side effects: 'Writes (install/uninstall/subscribe/cancel and the one-off install behind invoke) require workspace owner/admin.' It also explains the non-persistence of invoke, the conditions for returning links, and the behavior of the prompt library. No contradictions with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) are present; the description actually reinforces that this tool can mutate state and make external calls.

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?

While every sentence adds value, the description is a dense wall of text in a single paragraph. It front-loads the purpose well but then crams numerous actions, edge cases, and prompts into a lengthy run-on style. Breaking it into bullet points or separate paragraphs for marketplace actions, install/invoke flow, and prompt library would improve scannability. It is appropriately sized for the complexity but lacks structural organization.

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 tool with 23 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers not only the primary flows but also edge cases (credential/login, wallet top-up, one-off invoke vs permanent install), permissions, and the prompt library. It even specifies behavior for missing prerequisites and how to handle them. No significant gaps were identified for the intended use cases.

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% parameter descriptions in the schema, the description must carry the weight, and it does for core parameters: it explains the 'action' enum (search/describe/invoke/install/etc.) and implicitly defines 'mcp_id', 'tool_id', and 'arguments' through the narrative ('invoke RUNS that tool' with 'every tool with its id + params'). However, many parameters (e.g., 'limit', 'conversation', 'tier_slug', 'cancel_reason') receive no explanation, leaving room for ambiguity. Nonetheless, the most critical parameters are well covered, which is impressive given the tool's breadth.

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 a clear, specific verb-plus-resource statement: 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It unambiguously identifies the tool as the marketplace for discovering and executing MCPs, and it differentiates this tool from siblings by outlining its core flow (search/describe/invoke) and distinguishing it from other capabilities (prompt library). This satisfies the highest level of purpose clarity.

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 for different action modes: 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use.' It also covers conditional paths like missing credentials ('invoke returns a connect link') and empty wallets ('invoke returns a checkout/top-up link'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tools (e.g., 'use authenticate for login'), so it loses a point for not naming 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?

The description adds a key behavioral instruction—'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'—which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not detail side effects or outcomes (e.g., whether a ticket is created). Annotations already provide idempotency and non-destructiveness, so no contradiction exists, but the extra context is modest.

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 concise sentences immediately convey the tool's action and the critical instruction. There is no wasted wording, and the essential information is 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?

The description is adequate for a simple bug-reporting tool: it covers the core action and the key instruction about the conversation array. However, it does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., authentication) or what happens after reporting, which could be expected. Given the lack of an output schema, a bit more detail could round it out.

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 explicitly tells the user to include the conversation array, which adds meaning to the 'conversation' parameter. But it overlooks the required 'message' parameter and the optional 'context' field, leaving them undocumented. Given the low schema coverage, this partial compensation is insufficient.

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 report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback. It uses a specific verb ('Report') and a clear resource, and it naturally distinguishes itself from siblings like 'toolkit_info' or 'show_version' by focusing on user feedback. This matches the 'specific verb+resource' and differentiates from siblings.

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 the tool ('Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback'), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools. This fits 'clear context, no exclusions', which is a 4.

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 this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful scope by naming 'platform and adapter versions'. No additional behavioral disclosure is needed for such a simple informational tool.

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, direct sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and identifying the exact resource. 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?

This zero-parameter, read-only informational tool is fully described by a single sentence. The annotations provide the safety profile, and no output schema or additional behavioral explanation is necessary.

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, which establishes a baseline of 4. The schema coverage is trivially complete, and there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify.

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 action ('Show') and its specific resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It also differentiates itself from sibling tools like toolkit_info by focusing on platform/adapter versions rather than general toolkit information.

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 clearly implies use when version information is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but for a zero-parameter informational query, this level of context is clear and 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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds helpful context about what exactly the tool returns (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the 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?

A single sentence that leads with the primary action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists specifics. Zero waste, perfectly 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 zero-parameter info tool with clear annotations and a descriptive sentence, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know. The output schema is absent, but the description enumerates the return contents sufficiently. Sibling tools are all action-oriented, so this stands apart.

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 baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to explain parameters, and nothing is missing.

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 the current toolkit state and enumerates specific components: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This verb+resource structure distinguishes it from siblings 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?

The description implies use for inspecting toolkit state, but does not explicitly state when not to use or point to alternatives. Sibling names suggest different operations, but no explicit guidance is given. Still, the purpose is clear enough for selection.

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