Light: Download

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond these: it explains that the config method is 'permanent, non-expiring' while the session method is 'session-only', and describes the flow (call with token or no args to get link). This complements the annotations without contradiction, though it doesn't detail side effects like token overwrite—but that's likely covered by idempotency.

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, then elaborates in two sentences. Every sentence adds value: purpose, permanent method, session method, and no-arg behavior. No filler or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains both authentication flows, where to get the token, how to pass it, and the consequence of each method. Combined with the annotations, an agent has all needed context to invoke the tool correctly and understand its 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains the token parameter as a JWT ('{ token: "<jwt>" }') and clarifies that omitting arguments produces a link. This provides meaningful semantic meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify token format details beyond JWT or validation constraints.

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: logging in via browser and obtaining an access token for authentication. It specifies the verb (log in) and resource (access token), and distinguishes between two usage methods (permanent config vs session token). No sibling tool serves the same function, so differentiation is implicit but sufficient.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Best: add it to this server's config as a header...' for permanent connections, and 'paste it here for a session-only login' as an alternative. It also explains when to call with no args to get the link. This gives clear context on when to use each approach, covering alternatives effectively.

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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful conditional context by specifying distinct response states for fully connected vs. missing credentials, which helps the agent predict tool behavior 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses compact conditional clauses to describe edge cases. Every phrase adds useful information without 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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool, the description fully covers the relevant behaviors and return cues. It explains both happy path and missing-credentials path, and no output schema is needed given the low 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is complete, so parameter documentation is not needed. The description focuses appropriately on behavior and return conditions, matching the baseline for a zero-parameter 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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It then clearly differentiates the tool's behavior from siblings like authenticate by specifying exact output conditions: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected, and connect_url when credentials are missing.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to check connection status and discover URLs when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like authenticate, but the behavioral contrast is strongly 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 readOnly=true, idempotent=true, and destructive=false. The description adds valuable extra behavioral context: payment via prepaid credit, no platform credentials, non-confidential data scope, and LGPD controller responsibility. The credential statement is slightly ambiguous given required login/senha, but it does not contradict 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 brief and front-loads the main purpose before adding billing and legal caveats. There is minor redundancy between 'consulta em fonte oficial' and 'consulta informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros', but overall each sentence 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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, yet the description does not explain expected inputs, what exactly is downloaded, or the return format. Annotations cover safety, but operational completeness is lacking for an agent to invoke this tool confidently.

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% with 5 parameters, and the description provides no explanation of login, senha, mes, nome_cliente, or codigo_instalacao. The statement 'sem credenciais da plataforma' is also confusing next to the required login/senha fields. The description adds essentially no parameter-level 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 gives a verb and resource: 'Download, consulta em fonte oficial' and 'consulta informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like authenticate or marketplace as the only data-consultation tool, though it relies on the tool name to convey that this specifically concerns 'contas Light'.

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 when-to-use context: it is a paid, prepaid-credit query against official Brazilian sources, does not require platform credentials, and excludes confidential data. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for a tool with these 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?

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true — no detail on auth, side effects, or errors. The description carries full burden and delivers: one-off invoke semantics without toolkit pollution, connect-link and checkout-link flows with retry instruction, workspace owner/admin requirement for writes, and the distinction between installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace. This goes far beyond what annotations declare and adds genuine decision-relevant behavior. No contradiction with annotations; both imply a stateful, write-capable 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 wall of text well over 200 words with no paragraph breaks, bullets, or scannable structure — a scope of 14 distinct actions deserves at least some visual organization. Credit for a strong front-loaded opening sentence that captures the essence, and for the useful parenthetical clarifications like 'the user opens it, then you retry'. But the density harms scannability for an agent that must quickly extract timing/condition rules.

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 is a maximally complex surface — 23 params, a 14-value action enum, no output schema — and the description covers the dominant flows end-to-end: search → describe → invoke, the install-vs-invoke decision, auth/wallet error paths, permission requirements, and the prompt library sub-API. It falls just short of 5 because coverage is uneven: the prompt library and cancellation flows get comparatively thin treatment, and the error/retry model beyond the connect/checkout cases is unstated. Still remarkable completeness relative to tool 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 description coverage is 0% with 23 parameters and 0 required, pushing the full burden onto the description. The description names the action=enums (search, describe, install, invoke, etc.) and loosely implies behaviors for them, but no parameter is given meaningful semantics. Critically, it never explains that `arguments` takes a JSON string, what `conversation` is for, what `tier_slug` selects, what `message` contains, or how `immediate` and `resume` behave — an agent could not safely construct an invoke() call from this alone. Baseline 3 or higher is impossible with zero compensation for 23 undocumented params.

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 opening line 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them' clearly identifies the verb+resource with a specific scope. Some points deducted because 'marketplace' as a name embraces 15+ distinct actions (search, describe, invoke, install, publish, etc.), and the description never steps back to state a single crisp purpose — it does distinguish the tool from siblings only by virtue of covering everything, not through pointed differentiation.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', and 'prefer invoke' when credentials/wallet are needed with the connect/checkout link flow. It also names concrete alternatives within the tool ('list_tools lists what is callable right now', 'request_mcp asks us to build a NEW MCP when nothing fits'). This exceeds the bar for explicit if/when/alternative 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 convey that this is an idempotent, non-read-only operation. The description adds useful context about including recent messages for reproduction, but does not describe what happens after submission, response format, or any side effects beyond 'report'. This meets a baseline level of transparency without going deeper.

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 the core purpose and followed by a single highly relevant reproduction instruction. There is no filler or redundancy, so 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?

For a simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and how to supply key reproduction data. It would benefit from clarifying the 'context' parameter, but the overall description is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool 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 schema provides only names and a default for the three parameters, with 0% coverage in the description. The description explicitly gives meaning to 'conversation' ('recent messages for reproduction') and implicitly explains 'message' as the bug/feedback content, but leaves 'context' entirely undocumented. This partially compensates for the coverage gap, but not fully.

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 exactly what the tool does: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback'. It names the verb and the resource/scope clearly, and this clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools which are authentication, connection, marketplace, and version-related actions.

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 defines three explicit use cases: bug, missing feature, and feedback. It also gives a concrete instruction: 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the usage context is clear from the text.

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=false. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations, essentially restating what is returned. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not provide extra details like response format or platform-specific nuances.

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 states the action and target without any filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 low complexity, zero parameters, and rich annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior and output. It could name the exact version format or examples, but for a version check the current description is nearly 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 parameters, so parameter documentation is unnecessary. The schema coverage is effectively complete, and the description does not need to explain any input semantics.

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 identifies a precise resource: 'current MCP platform and adapter versions.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling operations like authenticate, connect, and report_bug.

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 whenever version information is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as toolkit_info. For a simple read-only version check, this implied guidance is acceptable but not fully 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it reports connection status and catalog counts, which is useful but does not go beyond what the annotations suggest (e.g., no mention of side effects, but none expected). No extra behavioral details like rate limits or auth requirements are provided, but with annotations carrying the safety load, a neutral score is appropriate.

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, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Returns' and details the key content. No waste, every phrase 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 has no parameters, a rich annotations set, and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and informative value. It could mention that it is read-only or that it provides a snapshot, but the annotations already cover safety. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand what it will get.

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 0 parameters, so the schema is trivially covered (100%). The description adds meaning by describing the return content (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts), which is the primary value since there are no parameters to document.

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, specifying the resources (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts). It distinguishes from siblings like connect and authenticate by卒頸 draft Knock,Oliver.

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 the tool is for querying the toolkit state but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It offers no guidance on when to prefer this over show_version or authenticate. Context is clear (returns current state) but exclusions are absent.

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