CRCP: Central de Registros de Certificados Profissionais

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: calling with no args returns a login link, calling with a token enables session-only login, and server-config header provides a non-expiring connection. It does not contradict the idempotentHint or other annotations, and offers insight into expected outcomes.

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, reasonably sized paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then covers the two usage modes. It contains some extra context like 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)' but every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's usage. Slightly wordy, but still 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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough detail about how to invoke it and what to expect (link, session login, permanent header). It covers the full workflow reasonably well, though it doesn't explicitly describe the response format after token submission. The low complexity makes this sufficient.

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 the schema only defines 'token' as a string with no description, the tool description fully compensates by explaining that 'token' is a JWT to paste after the user provides it, and that omitting it returns the login link. This gives complete semantic meaning for the only parameter, despite 0% schema_description_coverage.

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 is for authenticating with MCP.AI via browser login and obtaining an access token. It explains the two invocation modes (no args to get the link, or with token for session login). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'connect' or mention alternatives, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 on when to use each mode: permanent connection via server config header versus session-only login via token. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or name alternative tools, but the guidance on permanent vs session usage is a valuable contextual signal.

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 establish read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds meaningful state-dependent context beyond those annotations: it explains what happens when all providers are connected vs. when credentials are missing. This provides useful behavioral transparency without contradicting 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and no filler. Each sentence adds distinct value: the first states the general output, and the second clarifies the conditional branches. Perfectly concise for a zero-parameter status tool.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values; it does so for the main states (all connected vs. missing credentials). It could mention partial-credential behavior or error cases, but for a simple status-check tool the coverage 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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it still effectively describes what the returned output means for the no-input call.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('connection status and URLs'), and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate by describing a read-only status check rather than an auth action. The conditional output details make the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicitly stated: the description indicates this tool is for checking connection/auth status and obtaining URLs, but it does not explicitly say when to use it over authenticate or when not to use it. There are no stated exclusions or alternative tool references.

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 the payment model, the non-confidential nature of data, and LGPD responsibilities. It goes beyond the readOnly annotation by explaining the operational and legal context, though it does not mention potential errors or failure modes.

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 moderately concise but includes redundant legal phrasing. It could be trimmed, but the key points (query, payment, data sensitivity) are present without excessive verbosity.

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, the description need not explain return values. It covers the data source, payment, and legal responsibilities, which is sufficient for a simple query tool. Missing details like expected result format are acceptable.

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 only parameter 'cpf' has no schema description, and the tool description does not explain its format or purpose. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate by adding any meaning about the expected CPF value.

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 queries official Brazilian professional certificate records ('consulta em fonte oficial'). It distinguishes itself from generic sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.) by specifying its core function of querying certificate 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?

Provides usage context: pay-per-query with prepaid credits, no platform credentials needed, and notes the data is not confidential. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough that when to use is implicitly 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 readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses side effects: writes (install/uninstall/subscribe/cancel) require owner/admin, invoke runs one-off without permanent installation, and may return connect/checkout links. No contradiction with annotations; it adds critical behavioral 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 a dense single paragraph mixing MCP and prompt-library mechanics, which is hard to scan. It is front-loaded with purpose but overstays length, and a structured list or sectioning would improve readability. Still, every sentence adds info, so 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?

Given 23 parameters, minimal annotations, and no output schema, the description covers core behaviors: lifecycle (search/describe/invoke/install), permission requirements, billing/payment flows, and prompt library. It does not specify return structures for all actions but explains the main entry points and outcomes sufficiently for typical use.

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%, but the description explains the action enum's values and their semantics (e.g., invoke returns links, describe returns full profile). It does not detail each of the 23 parameters but covers the critical ones (action, mcp_id, tool_id, prompt_*) and their roles in the flow, adding value beyond the 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 the marketplace as the catalog and execution engine for MCPs, plus a prompt library. It distinguishes the core flow (search→describe→invoke) from alternative tools like toolkit_info or authenticate, making its unique role obvious.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', and it explains when to use search_prompts vs search. It also notes permission requirements for writes, making usage unambiguous.

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 indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation), idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the instruction to include conversation for reproduction, which is extra behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose what happens with the report (e.g., success response, persistence) or any prerequisites. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It omits unnecessary details. However, it could afford a bit more structure to cover parameter meanings, though the brevity is acceptable.

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 3 parameters (one required), no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description should provide fuller context. It only explains the purpose and the conversation parameter, leaving message and context underspecified. For a bug-reporting tool, users need to know what to put in the message field and what context means. This is insufficient for a complete tool description.

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% – the description provides no parameter details beyond the schema. It mentions 'conversation array' but does not explain the required 'message' parameter or the optional 'context'. The description partially implies message is the bug content, but lacks explicit semantics. Given zero schema coverage, the description should compensate more.

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: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) which are unrelated to issue 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 implies when to use the tool ('Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback') and provides an explicit instruction for how to use it ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'). It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context makes usage clear. Slight gap: no mention of what happens after submitting the report.

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 annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description aligns with these attributes, and no additional behavioral caveats are necessary. The tool's side-effect-free nature is fully disclosed.

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, concise sentence that conveys all necessary information without superfluous detail. It is well-structured and directly to the point.

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 simplicity and lack of output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose. However, it could slightly improve by explicitly mentioning the return format (e.g., a version string or JSON object), but this is not critical for a version query 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 there is nothing to explain. The input schema is empty, and the description correctly implies that no input is required. No additional semantic guidance 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's function: displaying the current MCP platform and adapter versions. The verb 'Show' is specific, and the resource (MCP platform and adapter versions) is explicitly defined, distinguishing it from potential sibling 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?

While not explicitly stating when to use or avoid, the purpose is self-evident and unambiguous. As a simple informational query, it is obvious that one would use this to retrieve version information. No alternative usage scenarios are 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 are empty, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool returns but does not explicitly disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, side effects, or performance impact. For an info tool, this is adequate but could be improved by stating it has no side effects.

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 immediately states the purpose and lists the key outputs. Every clause adds value, with no redundant or vague wording.

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 and no output schema. The description adequately explains what the tool returns, which is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool. Minor addition would be the output format, but not essential.

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. There is no parameter information needed, and the description correctly does not discuss parameters. No gap 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 clearly states the verb 'Returns' and the resource 'toolkit state', and lists specific data points (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate and connect, which have different purposes.

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 status but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is implied but not directly guided.

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