Conselho Regional de Odontologia RS: Cadastro

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: permanent non-expiring connection via config header vs session-only login, and that calling with no args returns the link. It doesn't describe response behavior for token submission, but given annotation coverage, this is sufficient.

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 that pack necessary context and instructions without being overly verbose. Slightly dense with config setup details, but every clause contributes to understanding; well-structured for a quick read.

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 input flow and the no-arg case, but does not state what happens after submitting a token (e.g., success response, validation, errors). With no output schema, this leaves a minor gap in expected return behavior. Still, the core auth workflow is adequately explained.

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 fully explains the 'token' parameter as a JWT to paste for session login, and clarifies that it is optional ('call with { token: ... } ... or with no args'). This compensates well for the empty 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 authenticates to MCP.AI for IDE agents, with a specific login flow ('log in in the browser, copy the access token'). It is specific about the resource (MCP.AI) and the action, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling 'connect', so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance on two usage modes: permanent config header vs session-only token paste, and explains when to call with no args to get the login link. It lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use alternatives, but the context is strong.

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, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it returns authenticated:true and empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url + per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This gives agents a clear model of the response without requiring an output schema.

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 with no fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose and then clarifies the two distinct return states. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clear and 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?

Given zero parameters, a read-only semantic (from annotations), and two clear return scenarios, the description is nearly complete. It could benefit from explicitly stating that pending[] lists missing credentials, but this is inferable. For a simple status-check tool, this is adequate.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters; it correctly focuses on the return output. No additional semantic value is 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It specifies the output conditions for two scenarios (all providers connected vs. missing credentials), making it unambiguous. The title 'Connection Status' from annotations further reinforces the purpose.

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 effectively explains what the tool returns in different states, implicitly telling the agent when to call it (to check connection status). It does not explicitly mention when to use it relative to sibling tools like authenticate, but given its read-only status-check nature, it's clear enough.

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 payment model (prepaid credit), the non-confidential nature of the data, and LGPD compliance responsibilities. This adds meaningful context about constraints and legal usage expectations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes necessary operational and legal details without redundancy. It is slightly dense but remains 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 single-parameter, read-only query tool with strong annotations, the description covers the purpose, data source, payment requirement, data sensitivity, and legal responsibilities. It does not specify output format, but no output schema exists, so this is 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 schema has one parameter 'inscricao' with no description; the tool description implies it is the registration number but never explicitly states its meaning or format. Given zero schema coverage, the description could have better explained this parameter to guide agents.

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 registration data from the Regional Council of Dentistry of Rio Grande do Sul, with specific resource (cadastro) and action (consulta). It distinguishes itself from generic sibling tools like authenticate or show_version by focusing on a specific official data retrieval task.

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 indicates the tool requires prepaid credit and that it accesses public official data, implying use for registration verification. It does not explicitly exclude other tools, but siblings are not alternatives for this specific query, so the guidance is sufficient.

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 substantial behavioral context beyond the sparse annotations: invoke works without installing, credentials return a connect link, empty wallets return a checkout link, writes require workspace owner/admin, and prompt links open without login. This goes well beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint and provides actionable expectations for side effects and auth/billing flows.

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 long, dense single paragraph without bullet points or section separation. It is front-loaded with the core flow and key invoke behavior, but the extensive run-on structure makes it harder to scan quickly. The length is somewhat justified by the tool's complexity, but it could be better organized.

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 high complexity, the description covers the main flows, permissions, billing, auth links, installed flags, and the prompt library. Gaps remain for some actions like resume and more detailed error/edge-case behavior, but the overall picture is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and exercise the tool effectively.

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 23 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the semantic burden and does so well for the core parameters: action values, mcp_id versus tool_id, prompt_vars, prompt_slug, and the purpose of prompt-related fields. However, several parameters such as arguments, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, conversation, and report_context are not explicitly explained, leaving some ambiguity.

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 defines the marketplace as the catalog of every MCP/tool and the way to run them, with a clear core flow (search → describe → invoke). It covers capability requests and distinguishes itself from siblings like report_bug and toolkit_info by naming its specific role as the in-platform catalog and execution layer.

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: use search for discovery, describe to get full MCP profiles, invoke for one-off runs even when not installed, and install only to make an MCP permanent. It also provides exclusions and alternatives, such as 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'list_tools lists what is callable right now.'

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 indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds that it sends feedback, but does not elaborate on side effects or rate limits. Since annotations cover some behavioral aspects, the description's contribution is modest.

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 well-structured, conveying essential information in one sentence without unnecessary 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?

The description gives the tool's purpose and a key usage detail (conversation array). It does not mention return values or error handling, but given the absence of an output schema and the simple nature of a bug report, it is largely complete for the intended 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?

The schema has 3 parameters with no descriptions. The description only hints that 'conversation' should contain recent messages, but does not explain 'message' or 'context'. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description carries the burden and only partially clarifies parameter meanings.

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: reporting a bug, missing feature, or sending feedback. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which are unrelated (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.).

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 specific guidance by instructing to include the conversation array for reproduction, which clarifies how to use the tool effectively. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but with no alternative bug-report tool, this is adequate.

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, indicating a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the basic action. Since the safety profile is covered by annotations, the description meets the baseline but does not enhance transparency further.

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, front-loaded with the verb 'Show', and contains no redundant words. Every word earns its place. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description fully covers the essential information. It states exactly what the tool does, and given the low complexity, no further context is required. The presence of annotations compensates for any missing behavioral details.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. According to the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters, as none exist. It adds meaning by specifying the output (versions) without needing to describe 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 function: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It uses a specific verb ('show') and identifies the exact resource (MCP platform and adapter versions), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect'. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct.

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 state when to use this tool or mention any alternatives. However, the purpose itself implies usage: call this when you need to check the current versions. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided, so it falls into the 'implied usage' category.

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 value by detailing what state is returned: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. No contradictions; it provides useful behavioral context beyond 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence delivers all essential information without redundancy. Every phrase adds meaningful detail about the tool's output scope.

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 status tool, the description fully covers what the agent can expect: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. No output schema exists, but the description's enumeration of return categories is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description compensates by explaining what the tool reports, which is sufficient since there are no inputs to document.

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 resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates the exact content: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate/connect, which perform actions rather than report state.

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 this tool is for inspecting tool/account/connection state, especially useful before choosing to authenticate or connect. It does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools, but the zero-parameter read-only nature and wording make its intended context clear.

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