Cadastro PF + Receita Federal

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

Beyond annotations (idempotent, non-read-only), the description discloses behavior: calling with no args returns a login link, calling with token authenticates for the session, and it explains the permanent connection via config. This adds valuable operational context.

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 with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes: purpose, best practice, and the alternative call pattern. 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 simple schema (1 optional param) and no output schema, the description covers the main use cases and outcomes (getting a link or authenticating). Minor gap: it doesn't explicitly state what the tool returns when a token is provided, but the intent is clear.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 0%, the description fully explains the single parameter `token`: it's optional, its format (JWT), and the two calling modes (with/without token). This compensates completely for the schema's lack of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: authenticating the user via browser login and access token. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the dedicated authentication tool, and it provides the exact flow (log in, copy token, call with token or get link).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use permanent config-based auth vs session-only token paste, and offers a best practice (config header) alongside the alternative. This is clear usage direction beyond simply naming the 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?

The description discloses state-dependent behavior (all connected vs. missing credentials) that annotations do not cover. Since annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description adds valuable context about return values and conditions without contradicting the safety profile.

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 primary purpose. Every sentence earns its place: one states the overall function, the other details conditional responses. No waste.

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 two main states (all connected and missing credentials) but leaves a slight gap for partial connection states. Without an output schema, this is a small omission, but the overall behavior is clear enough for a simple read-only status tool with zero parameters.

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. The description is not required to explain parameters, and none are present. It does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 'Returns connection status and URLs,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than performing authentication.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context on when to use this tool (e.g., to check connection status and get URLs when credentials are missing). While it does not explicitly name alternatives, the behavioral conditions communicate its use case effectively, and the sibling 'authenticate' implies the alternative.

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 and destructiveHint, but the description adds useful context: data is public access, not private, and LGPD responsibilities are mentioned. This goes beyond structured fields without contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Additional legal and payment details are relevant and not wasted, though the text is a bit 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?

The description covers purpose, access type, payment, and legal aspects, but the 'completo' parameter is undocumented and no output format is mentioned. For a simple tool, this is a noticeable 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 does not explain the 'completo' parameter. Only the CPF parameter is implicitly clear from the tool name and description, so parameter semantics are 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 clearly states it provides registration data and Federal Revenue status for a CPF, specifying the resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are unrelated to CPF consultation.

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: hosted platform, no credentials, prepaid credit per query. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but siblings are unrelated, so this is reasonable.

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 annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds rich behavioral context: invoke returns connect links for credential needs, checkout/top-up links for empty wallets, and instructs to retry after user action. It also discloses that writes require workspace owner/admin and explains installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace flags. This goes far beyond what annotations provide.

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 organized: core purpose → core flow → key invoke behavior → install vs invoke distinction → prompt library → permissions. Every sentence adds value, but the length could be better structured with bullet points or section breaks for improved scannability given the 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 the tool's complexity (23 parameters, no output schema), the description covers most essential flows and edge cases (authentication, billing, permissions, installed vs one-off), and even explains return values for some actions (invoke links, publish_prompt shareable URL). However, some actions like 'resume' are not explained, and several parameters remain undocumented, so completeness is strong but not exhaustive.

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 partially compensates by explaining action enum values (search, describe, invoke, install, etc.), and the roles of mcp_id/tool_id} in the workflow. It also touches on prompt-related parameters like prompt_vars. However, many parameters remain unexplained (immediate, conversation, request_name, report_context, prompt_targets, etc.), leaving gaps in semantic understanding.

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 as the official mcp.ai marketplace catalog and execution engine, using specific verbs like search, describe, invoke, and install. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate and connect by focusing on discovery and running of MCPs, and it also covers the separate prompt library capability.

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 an explicit decision tree: use search to discover MCPs, describe to get full profiles, invoke for one-off runs (even when not installed), install only for permanent toolkit additions, and list_tools for currently callable tools. It explicitly states 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and names alternatives, leaving no ambiguity about when to use each action.

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=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral details about side effects or response behavior beyond noting the need for the conversation array for reproduction. It is consistent with annotations, but does not go beyond them.

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, immediately stating the purpose and key requirement for the conversation array. No unnecessary 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 simple tool with only three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key usage instruction. However, it lacks guidance on expected outcomes, authentication prerequisites (given the sibling 'authenticate'), or clarification of the 'context' parameter. Overall adequate but with minor gaps.

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 has no descriptions, and the description only explains the 'conversation' parameter ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'). The required 'message' parameter and the 'context' parameter are not elaborated, leaving their semantics to inference. Thus some compensation is provided, but incompletely.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This clearly identifies the verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace.

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 does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose implies use for reporting issues, there is no direct comparison or exclusion of other tools. The instruction to include the conversation array gives some context, but no alternative guidance is provided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe, read-only nature is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., response format, potential errors, or authentication requirements), but for such a simple tool this is acceptable.

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 sentence of 11 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word is necessary; there is 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 trivial complexity (no parameters, no output schema, clear annotations), the description is adequate. It fully explains the tool's action, though it does not specify the return format. This is a minor gap, but the tool is simple enough that the description is largely 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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no new parameter information because there are no parameters to describe.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Show' with a clear resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace. It leaves no doubt about what the tool does.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative comparisons are provided. However, the straightforward purpose makes usage implied: use when you need platform/adapter version information. There are no sibling tools with similar functionality, so the lack of explicit exclusions is mitigated.

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 valuable context about the exact information returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), going beyond what the annotations state without contradicting them.

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 action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists specific data points. Every clause adds useful information, 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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It clearly explains the purpose and the return content, leaving no ambiguous gaps for an agent to misinterpret.

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 coverage is 100% (trivially). According to the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to describe, but this is appropriate and not a gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Returns' and defines the resource as 'current toolkit state', elaborating on exactly what is included: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or show_version by focusing on toolkit-wide state rather than individual operations.

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 for when to use the tool: anytime an agent needs an overview of the toolkit's installed MCPs, connections, and accounts. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer its purpose.

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