Conselho Regional de Enfermagem SP: Cadastro

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds useful context about no-args returning a link and token-based session login. However, it doesn't describe return values, error cases, or whether the tool persists any state beyond the session, so transparency is adequate but incomplete.

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 three sentences and largely front-loaded with the core purpose. It is information-dense and doesn't waste words, though the mix of user steps and tool API details makes it slightly dense.

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 one-parameter optional-auth tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, token behavior, and the two login modes. It could mention what a successful or failed login returns, but the overall picture is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully explains the optional token parameter: it is a JWT access token used for session-only login, and omitting it triggers link generation. This more than compensates for 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 states that this tool authenticates the MCP.AI server for IDE agents by capturing an access token through browser login and either configuring a header or accepting the token directly. It gives a specific action and workflow, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from 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 explains when to call with no arguments (to get a login link) and when to provide a token (session-only login), and also recommends the permanent header configuration. It provides clear context but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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 valuable behavioral context by specifying conditional outputs: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. 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 two sentences long, front-loads the primary purpose, and uses conditional phrasing to explain both key scenarios without unnecessary words. Every sentence adds meaningful 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the output documentation burden well by covering the all-connected and missing-credentials cases. It leaves some detail around 'pending[]' and 'per-install URLs' undefined, and does not explicitly address mixed connection states, but these are minor gaps for a low-complexity status 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema places no burden on the description. The description correctly focuses on return behavior and conditional states rather than input semantics, which is appropriate for a parameterless status 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 and resource: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by framing it as a status check rather than an authentication action.

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 the tool: to check whether providers are connected and to retrieve connection URLs when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the conditional scenarios provide clear contextual 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 readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful context: paid per query, no platform credentials, non-confidential public data, and client liability under LGPD. It does not cover edge cases like empty results or matching ambiguity, but it goes beyond the annotations meaningfully.

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 short and front-loaded with the resource and action; the following sentences cover payment, official-source status, confidentiality, and LGPD without significant fluff. The first sentence is a fragment, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 source, cost, credentials, confidentiality, and legal responsibility, which is solid context for a simple read-only query. However, it does not describe the return content or identifier combination rules, and there is no output schema or required-parameter information to fill that 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of cpf, inscricao, or nome_completo: whether they are alternatives, required in any combination, or how the matching works. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does nothing to compensate for the missing 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 identifies the resource ('Conselho Regional de Enfermagem SP') and the action ('consulta em fonte oficial' / 'Consulta informação...'), and it is obviously distinct from the sibling tools. The phrasing 'Cadastro, consulta' is slightly elliptical, so the action is not stated in a crisp verb-first form.

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 practical context: official Brazilian source, data available to citizens, no platform credentials required, prepaid credit required, and LGPD obligations. No explicit alternative tool or when-not-to-use condition is mentioned, but the access model and domain are clear enough for appropriate selection.

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 are minimal (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true, idempotentHint false, destructiveHint false). The description adds substantial behavioral context: invoke runs one-off without installing, returns connect/checkout links on auth/payment failures, writes require workspace owner/admin, and search/describe flag installation status. It does not contradict any annotations and enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and prerequisites.

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 dense single paragraph but logically structured: it opens with the core purpose, describes the main flow, highlights key nuances (one-off invoke vs install), lists auxiliary actions, and ends with the prompt library. Every sentence adds value, though bullet points could improve scannability. It is verbose but justified given 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?

Given no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers all critical aspects: the full action set, billing/auth flows, write permissions, the one-off vs permanent distinction, and the prompt library features. It leaves no major gaps that would prevent an agent from using the tool correctly, making it highly 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains most parameters indirectly via the action enum (e.g., mcp_id, tool_id, arguments for search/describe/invoke) and explicitly covers prompt-related params (prompt_body, prompt_slug, prompt_tool, prompt_vars, etc.) in the prompt library section. However, some params like 'limit', 'query', 'immediate', 'tier_slug', and 'conversation' are not explicitly defined, though their purpose is partially inferable from defaults and the overall flow. This is a strong compensation but not a complete one-to-one mapping.

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 defines the tool's purpose as the official mcp.ai marketplace for discovering, describing, and running MCPs, plus the prompt library. It distinguishes itself from siblings by covering a wide range of actions (search, describe, invoke, install, etc.) and explicitly explains the core flow, making it unique among the listed 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 when-to-use guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs. 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', and explains when to use search, describe, list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, and request_mcp. It also clarifies auth requirements for writes. This is exemplary 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?

The description mentions including the conversation array for reproduction, but does not elaborate on the tool's side effects, what it does with the data, or confirm the idempotent nature hinted by 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 succinct, consisting of two concise sentences with no redundant 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 states the core purpose and gives a basic hint about the conversation array, but lacks details about return values, post-submission behavior, or any additional constraints, making it only moderately 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 description only references the 'conversation' parameter and completely omits the 'message' and 'context' parameters, leaving their purpose unexplained. Schema coverage is low.

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 the tool's purpose as reporting bugs, missing features, or feedback, which is distinct from the 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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions for use beyond the inherent action of reporting.

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, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds little beyond 'show', but it does specify the subject matter. With annotations covering safety, the description's contribution is minimal.

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, clear sentence with no fluff or redundant details. It is optimally 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?

The description clearly identifies what versions are shown (MCP platform and adapter), which is sufficient given no output schema. It lacks details like return format, but that is not necessary for this simple action.

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 no parameters, so the description trivially satisfies parameter semantics. No additional explanation is needed.

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 shows current MCP platform and adapter versions, using a verb ('show') and a specific resource ('versions'). It is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or 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 usage for retrieving version information, but does not explicitly state when to use it or mention any alternatives. Given the simplicity of the action, this is adequate but not highly instructive.

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 covered. The description adds meaningful context about the exact data returned (MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations for a read-only status 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the specific data points. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete: it fully specifies what the tool returns and covers the key aspects an agent would need to decide to call it. No additional behavioral or return-format details are necessary for this simple read-only status 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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty schema), so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation burden exists.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state') with an enumerated list of contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This fully distinguishes it from siblings like show_version, connect, and authenticate.

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 inspecting toolkit state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer basic usage, but there is no direct guidance about prerequisites or comparison with sibling tools.

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