Conselho Regional de Odontologia CE: Cadastro

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

The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations: browser login flow, no-args returns a link, non-expiring config vs session-only token. Annotations already signal idempotent and non-destructive, and the description does not contradict 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?

Three sentences, all information-dense, with the most important guidance front-loaded. No filler or redundant repetition of schema or annotation details.

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 auth tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core flow and both usage modes. Minor gaps remain around the actual response shape when posting a token, but this does not impede 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%, but the description fully compensates for the single optional token parameter. It explains exactly when to pass a token, what kind of token to use, and what happens when called with no arguments.

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 authenticates an MCP.AI server for IDE agents via browser login and token exchange. It uses specific actions and resources, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool '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?

Provides clear context on when to use the tool and contrasts the two auth flows: permanent config header vs session-only token paste. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for most agent decisions.

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 behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations by specifying the exact outputs for different connection states (authenticated:true and empty pending[], or connect_url). This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's side effects and return semantics.

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 well-structured, using two sentences to convey the core functionality and the two primary outcome scenarios. It avoids redundancy and is easily scannable.

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 absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context by naming key result fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url) and explaining the conditions under which they appear. It covers the main behavior, though more edge cases could be specified, but that's not necessary for a tool with no 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 no parameters, and the description appropriately does not discuss parameter semantics. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and no additional compensation is needed since there is nothing to clarify.

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 the tool returns connection status and URLs, and elaborates on two specific conditions that determine the output. This verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, marketplace, and toolkit_info, making its 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?

While the description provides conditional behaviors (all providers connected vs. credentials missing), it does not explicitly state when to use this tool in comparison to alternatives like authenticate. The situational hints are implicit rather than explicit directives, leaving room for the agent to infer usage.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds payment model and data handling (pre-paid credits, LGPD), which is useful, but doesn't disclose rate limits, response format, or potential failures. No 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 a single paragraph that is reasonably concise but packs multiple clauses. It front-loads the main purpose but mixes in legal and payment details. Overall, it's adequately brief but not optimally structured for quick scanning.

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 only one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the complexity is moderate. The description includes key aspects (official source, payment, data privacy) but lacks specifics on input format and expected output. Given the simplicity, a 3 is reasonable.

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 'inscricao' is documented only as a string in the schema, with 0% description coverage. The description doesn't explain what 'inscricao' means (likely registration number), nor its format (e.g., digits only, length). Since the description carries the burden for this parameter but omits details, the score 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 states the tool consults dental council registration records from an official Brazilian source, using a specific verb ('consultar') and resource ('cadastro'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the specific council (CRO-CE), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 (when needing official dental registration data) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. It mentions payment and pre-paid credits, which is useful context, but doesn't specify scenarios where other tools might be better.

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 goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that invoke works even when the MCP is not installed, runs one-off without adding the MCP to the toolkit, and returns connect/checkout links for missing credentials or empty wallets. It also reveals that writes require workspace owner/admin and that search/describe flag installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace, which is valuable 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 dense and every sentence carries useful information, with the core purpose front-loaded. The main weakness is structural: it is one large paragraph without headings or bullets, which makes it harder to scan quickly despite the high information density.

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 23-parameter tool with no output schema and only coarse annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers the end-to-end workflow, permission requirements, fallback behaviors for auth/payment, the difference between one-off invoke and permanent install, installed-status reporting, subscription management, bug reporting, and the prompt library. This is more than enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, and it does cover the central action/mcp_id/tool_id/arguments relationship in the search→describe→invoke flow. It also explains prompt-related parameters (search_prompts, get_prompt with {{variables}}, publish_prompt returning a shareable link). However, several parameters like limit, query, immediate, tier_slug, report_context, conversation, and request_details are not explicitly described, leaving some inference required.

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 it is 'the official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them,' which clearly identifies the tool's scope and primary function. It also distinguishes the action categories (search, describe, invoke, install, prompts) and differentiates it from sibling tools by describing its own core flow.

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: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', and it maps user intents to actions such as 'find an MCP that does X' leading to search/describe/invoke. It also explains when subscribe/cancel, report_bug, and request_mcp are appropriate, and notes the permission boundary for writes.

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 provide idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the requirement to include the conversation array, which is a usage detail rather than a behavioral trait. Since annotations cover the basic safety profile (non-destructive, idempotent), the description does not need to restate those, but it also does not reveal any additional side effects (e.g., network call, data persistence). This is acceptable but not enriched.

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 and followed by a key usage instruction. Every word contributes; there is no redundancy or filler. It is concise while conveying essential 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 3 parameters with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is underspecified. It does not explain the 'message' or 'context' parameters, nor does it convey what response to expect or whether any prerequisites exist. While the purpose is clear, the operational details are insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly without guessing.

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 for parameter meanings. It only hints at the 'conversation' parameter by mentioning the conversation array. It does not explain 'message' (though it is the required field) or 'context'. The description fails to provide adequate meaning for two of the three parameters, leaving the agent uncertain about expected input formats or purposes.

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 uses a specific verb (report) and resource (bug/feature/feedback), and is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace. It leaves no ambiguity 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?

The description provides clear usage context by instructing to 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' This tells the user when to supply additional information. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios, though given the unrelated sibling tools, the intended use is obvious. This aligns with 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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, so no safety warnings are needed. The description accurately describes a read-only operation, consistent with annotations. No contradictions, and the behavior is evident for such a simple 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?

A single, well-phrased sentence that delivers complete information without any fluff. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 parameterless, read-only version check with no output schema, this description is fully adequate. The tool is simple, and the description covers everything an agent needs to use it correctly.

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. Per the rubric, a score of 4 is the baseline for no parameters, and the description doesn't need to add any parameter semantics.

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' and clearly identifies the resource as 'MCP platform and adapter versions.' It is concise, unambiguous, and easily distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on version retrieval.

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's context is crystal clear: use this to see version information. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the simplicity of the operation makes the usage obvious. A sibling like toolkit_info might overlap, but no 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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful detail about what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which aids in predicting output. It does not mention any side effects or dependencies, but given the annotations, no additional disclosure is necessary, and there is no 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?

One clear, concise sentence that precisely describes the tool's output. No filler or ambiguity. The structure is optimal for a stateless read-only info 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?

Given the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive) and the clear description of what it returns, this is complete. It doesn't need to describe error conditions or output schemas because it's a simple informational call. The sibling tools are all action-oriented, so this stands out as the state-checking 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 eager. The schema shows an empty properties object, and the description implies no required inputs. Thus parameter semantics are irrelevant; the tool is fully self-contained. The description clarifies that it just returns state without specifying inputs.

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: to return the current toolkit state, listing installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and describes the resource ('toolkit state') with concrete details, distinguishing it 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 when the agent needs to inspect the overall toolkit state (installed MCPs, connections, accounts). It does not explicitly exclude other tools or mention alternatives, but the read-only informational nature is clear. Since it's self-contained and doesn't conflict with siblings, a 4 is appropriate.

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