Limite de Crédito PJ

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by explaining the permanent vs session-only behavior, the JWT token format, and the config header option. It doesn't exhaustively cover all side effects but adequately discloses key behavioral traits. 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 content-dense and every sentence serves a purpose, but the phrasing 'log in in the browser' is awkward and the structure could be more organized. Despite this, it remains reasonably concise for the information conveyed.

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 tool, the description covers both invocation modes and the permanent config alternative thoroughly. It doesn't explicitly state what the tool returns when a token is provided, which is a minor omission given the lack of an output schema, but overall it is sufficiently 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 explains that the 'token' parameter is a JWT for session login and that omitting it triggers a link response. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, adding significant meaning beyond the bare string type in 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 states the tool is for authenticating to MCP.AI for IDE agents, specifying a browser login and token retrieval. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' by focusing on auth and describing two invocation modes (with token or no args), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 recommends using server config for a permanent, non-expiring connection, and using the tool for session-only login. It provides clear instructions on when to call with a token vs no args, effectively guiding the agent on correct usage and alternatives.

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 adds meaningful state-dependent behavior beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations: it specifies that authenticated:true and empty pending[] are returned when all providers are connected, and connect_url for toolkit and per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This provides context not present in the annotations, though it does not disclose potential partial-connection states.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, the first stating the core purpose and the second providing conditional details. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or extraneous 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the two primary output states. It is slightly vague on partial connection states (e.g., when some providers are connected but not all), but it gives enough information for an agent to understand the tool's function and expected return values.

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%. With no parameters to describe, the baseline score of 4 is appropriate; the description correctly avoids adding unnecessary parameter details.

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' with a specific verb and resource. It elaborates on two distinct output scenarios (all providers connected vs. missing credentials), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose and distinguishing it from the sibling 'authenticate' 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?

The description implies usage for checking connection status but does not explicitly identify when to use it versus alternatives like 'authenticate'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided; the guidance is inferred from the output descriptions rather than stated.

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 readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses the hosted nature, lack of credentials, payment model, external data sources (bureaus), and regulatory responsibility (LGPD). This gives the agent a complete picture of what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 bit long but front-loaded with the primary purpose and each subsequent sentence adds valuable context (payment, legal, data sources). No sentence is redundant, though the LGPD detail could be condensed.

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, source, auth, and legal aspects, but it lacks any explanation of the return value or output format. For a credit analysis tool that suggests a limit, the agent would benefit from knowing what the response contains. The 'completo' parameter is also left undefined, so the description isn't complete enough 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 fully explain parameters. The CNPJ is mentioned in the purpose, but the 'completo' boolean parameter is entirely unexplained. The agent cannot know whether to set it true/false or what effect it has, leaving a significant 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 clearly states the tool performs a complete credit analysis of a company using CNPJ, including a credit limit suggestion. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling tools and leaves no doubt about its function.

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 key usage context: no credentials required, pay-per-query with prepaid credits, and mandatory legal basis (LGPD). It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives, but with generic siblings this is sufficient 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 only provide readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true, etc. The description adds key behavioral details beyond that: invoke works even when MCP is not installed and runs one-off without bloating the list; credential needs return a connect link; payment needs return a checkout/top-up link and then retry; install makes permanent. No contradictions 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?

The description is long but dense with necessary information covering multiple actions, permissions, failure modes, and the prompt library. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured as a clear flow ('Core flow: action=search ... → describe ... → invoke'). Minor redundancy and the mixed-language term 'pontualmente' slightly mar conciseness.

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 complex tool with 23 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle: discovery, description, invocation, installation, billing, permissions, bug reporting, MCP requests, and the prompt library. It addresses auth and payment edge cases and distinguishes installed vs. permanent states, making it sufficient for correct tool selection and 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 has zero descriptions for 23 parameters. The description compensates by explaining the core parameters through the flow: 'action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns one MCP's full profile (every tool with its id + params, pricing, auth) so you pick the right tool_id → invoke RUNS that tool.' It also covers prompt_vars, prompt_slug, etc. However, it does not explicitly map all 23 parameters (e.g., limit, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason).

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 identifies the tool as 'the official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It enumerates concrete capabilities (search, describe, invoke, install, etc.) and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like authenticate/connect by focusing on catalog execution and prompt library features.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs. 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT,' and distinguishes actions like 'subscribe/cancel handle per-MCP billing; report_bug sends feedback; request_mcp asks us to build a NEW MCP.' It also states permission requirements: 'Writes ... require workspace owner/admin.'

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, destructiveHint false, and idempotentHint true. The description adds that conversation data is needed for reproduction, which is useful context, but it does not disclose what happens after reporting (e.g., ticket creation or response). 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and the key usage requirement. 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 bug-reporting tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a main requirement, but lacks parameter documentation and return behavior. It is minimally viable but has clear 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions the conversation parameter (and calls it an array while the schema defines it as a string), while omitting the 'message' and 'context' parameters entirely, leaving their semantics unclear.

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 it reports a bug, missing feature, or feedback, using clear verbs and resource scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, 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?

It provides a specific usage instruction—include the conversation array for reproduction—giving clear context on how to use the tool effectively. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but no obvious alternatives exist among the 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 already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds 'current' indicating a live query, and specifies the exact type of version info returned. No contradictions 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?

A single, information-dense sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous words. Excellent conciseness.

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 of the tool (no parameters, no output schema, trivial operation), the description is complete. It clearly states what versions are shown and leaves no ambiguity.

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 description does not need to elaborate on parameter meanings. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description is sufficiently explicit about what the tool does.

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'), distinguishing it from other tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect'. Its purpose is immediately obvious and unambiguous.

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 no explicit alternative is named, the tool's unique purpose (version checking) makes its usage context clear. There are no similar sibling tools, so the absence of exclusions is acceptable.

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 idempotentHint, and the description aligns with that by describing a read-only operation. It adds valuable detail about the kinds of information returned, which helps the agent anticipate the output. 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?

A single, well-structured sentence conveys all necessary information with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and lists concrete deliverables, making it easy to parse.

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 informational tool, the description fully covers what the tool returns. The annotations handle the safety profile, and the lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit list of return contents. No gaps remain.

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 description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies. It adds no parameter info, but none 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 with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), and enumerates exactly what is included (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'show_version', which is narrower in scope.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever the agent needs an overview of the toolkit state. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use show_version for version only'), 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.