CPF

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

Explains side effects: permanent config modification vs session-only. Aligns with annotations (idempotent, non-destructive) and adds behavioral details like returning a link when no args.

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?

Slightly verbose but well-organized with clear alternatives. Each sentence adds value, no 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?

Covers both invocation modes, outcome (link or session), and config persistence. Despite no output schema, it explains expected results adequately.

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 single parameter 'token' is defined as an access token/JWT. Description clarifies when it is required, optional, and how it affects behavior, compensating for lack of schema descriptions.

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 the verb 'authenticate' and the resource 'MCP.AI for IDE agents'. Distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the authentication flow and token usage.

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 scenarios: adding token to config for permanent connection, passing token for session-only, or calling with no args to obtain a login link. Explains when to use each mode.

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 useful behavioral context by specifying conditional outcomes: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. It could go further by explaining what pending[] represents or what the URLs are for, but it still supplements 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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides the key conditional behavior. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

With zero parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the main states and response fields adequately. It is slightly vague about what 'per-install URLs' and 'pending[]' contain, but for a simple status tool these gaps are minor.

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 an empty object with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not attempt to document parameters that do not 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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It clearly frames this as a read-only status check rather than an action, which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'authenticate.' The conditional details further clarify the tool's scope around provider connectivity.

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 should be used to check connection status and URLs, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'authenticate.' It lacks direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, so the usage context is only inferred.

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, idempotentHint, non-destructive), the description discloses the paid-broker dependency and the fallback behavior when `nome` is omitted. This adds meaningful context about external prerequisites and failure modes. No contradiction with annotations 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 compact and front-loaded, immediately announcing the tool's purpose. Every sentence adds essential information: what the tool does, why `nome` is needed, and what happens when it is missing. No filler or redundant 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?

For a 2-parameter read-only search tool, the description covers core behavior, parameter dependency, and fallback output. It does not describe the success output format or return fields, and there is no output schema to compensate, so a small completeness gap remains.

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% schema description coverage, the description compensates partly by explaining that `nome` is recommended and required for resolution without a paid broker. However, the `cpf` parameter itself lacks format guidance (e.g., digits only, masking) and the exact role of `cpf` in the lookup remains under-specified.

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 a specific action ('busca os processos') with a clear resource (processos da pessoa) and scope (Diário/DJEN), and clarifies that discovery works via person name rather than public CPF-to-name mapping. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tool cpf_validar, which is about CPF validation.

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 usage guidance: inform the `nome` parameter because CPF-to-name is not public data; without `nome`, the tool only works if a paid broker is configured, otherwise it returns an instruction requesting the name. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, so it stops short of 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 already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. Beyond that, the description adds important behavioral context: it validates only check digits, does not reveal the holder's identity, and also reports identity broker availability. This is useful context beyond the annotations, though it does not detail output format or edge-case behavior.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and includes only relevant information. Every part is meaningful: what is validated, how, the availability check, and the privacy guarantee. 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?

For a single-parameter read-only validation tool with strong annotations, the description provides enough context to select and invoke the tool. It explains the core function, the privacy constraint, and the added availability check. It could briefly mention the return value, but the simplicity of the tool reduces the need for more detail.

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 the parameter name 'cpf' and type 'string', with no description. The tool description adds the meaning that this CPF string is used for validating check digits via mod 11, but it does not specify accepted formats (e.g., with/without punctuation, length) or what happens with invalid input. This is a moderate improvement over 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 uses a specific verb ('Valida') and names the exact resource (CPF), plus the method (dígitos verificadores mod 11). It also states the secondary purpose (identity broker availability), which clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like authenticate and cpf_processos.

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 this tool should be used when someone needs to validate CPF check digits, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over sibling tools or when not to use it. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so usage guidance remains only implicit.

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?

Rich behavioral disclosure far beyond the minimal annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds crucial context: invoke runs tools one-off even when the MCP isn't installed (without bloating the tool list), install makes tools appear natively in future sessions, auth/wallet-emptied cases return links requiring user action before retry, writes require workspace owner/admin, and search/describe flag installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace. 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?

Information-dense with no wasted sentences — every clause earns its place given the 14-action scope. It is front-loaded with identity and core flow. The downside is formatting: it's one continuous run-on paragraph with no bullets or section breaks, making the dense guidance harder to parse than its substance warrants.

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?

Remarkably complete for a 14-action dispatcher with no output schema, no param descriptions, and minimal annotations. It covers core flow, per-action semantics, auth/wallet edge cases, permission requirements, and the separate prompt-library subsystem. Gaps: return formats are never described (no output schema means the description should bear that burden), and the resume action, immediate flag, and conversation param are unexplained despite the tool's 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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 23 parameters, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it explains the action enum semantics (all 14 values with their behaviors), the key flow parameters (mcp_id, tool_id, arguments), and the prompt-library cluster (prompt_body, prompt_slug, prompt_vars, prompt_title, prompt_targets). However, a few params (immediate, conversation, tier_slug, resume) receive no semantic coverage, and the overlap between request_name/request_details/report_context is implied rather than clarified.

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 is — "The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them." It names specific verbs and resources (search discovers MCPs, describe returns profiles, invoke runs tools, install makes permanent) and clearly differentiates from siblings like authenticate, connect, and cpf_validar by establishing the marketplace as the catalog/execution hub.

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?

Excellent guidance: it spells out the core flow (search → describe → invoke), explicitly recommends "prefer invoke for a single/occasional use" over install, explains when install is appropriate (permanent toolkit membership), covers capability request phrasing ("find an MCP that does X", "is there a tool for Y"), and delineates each action (list_tools, subscribe, report_bug, request_mcp). It even explains when invoke returns connect/checkout links and to retry after the user opens them.

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 idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partially known. The description adds useful context about including conversation history for reproduction, but does not disclose what happens when a report is submitted, such as external transmission or any side effects beyond creating a report.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a practical usage tip. Every phrase earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 low-complexity feedback/bug-reporting tool with three simple parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It states the action, the accepted subjects, and a required supporting artifact. It could be improved by clarifying what happens after submission, but this is not essential for correct invocation.

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. It does explain the 'conversation' parameter's purpose, but it does not clarify 'message' beyond its obvious role or explain 'context.' The instruction to include conversation history adds real value, but the other parameters remain underdocumented.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It also clearly differentiates from sibling tools like marketplace, authenticate, and cpf_processos, which are unrelated to bug reporting.

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: bug reporting and feedback. It also adds a practical instruction: include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling tools are clearly distinct.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is well covered. The description adds that it covers both platform and adapter versions, which is a useful behavioral detail beyond the structured annotations. No contradictions found.

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 one sentence, clear and front-loaded. It contains exactly the necessary information with zero waste, making it highly concise and well-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?

The tool is simple with no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations that cover safety and idempotency. The description mentions both platform and adapter versions, which is complete for its scope. While it could hint at return format, the lack of an output schema makes it balanced.

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, and the schema has 100% coverage (empty properties). Since there are no parameters to explain, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information but doesn't need to, as there are none.

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, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It is distinguishable from siblings like 'toolkit_info' which likely provides broader tool information, though not explicitly differentiated.

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 versions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'toolkit_info'. Given the sibling context, some guidance on differentiation would improve clarity, but the simple purpose is self-evident for a version check.

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. The description adds useful context by specifying exactly what the returned toolkit state contains, reinforcing that this is a safe inspection operation. No behavior beyond the annotation profile is mentioned, but none is required for this simple read-only 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 core purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then uses a colon-delimited list to efficiently enumerate the returned data. There is no filler or redundance.

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 an inner zero-parameter tool with strong read-only annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers the relevant surface: what the information is and what data categories it exposes. No further detail is necessary for an agent to select, calibrate expectations for, or invoke this 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 the schema is an empty object, so the description carries no parameter burden. It communicates that the tool takes no input and simply reports current state, which is sufficient.

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 distinct resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates exactly what is included: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools such as authenticate, connect, and show_version.

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 establishes a clear use context: invoke this to get an overall snapshot of the toolkit's installed integrations and connection status. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives would be more appropriate, such as show_version for version-only checks.

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