CVM: Participante

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with. The description adds context about the token being non-expiring for permanent connection and session-only for pasted tokens, which is useful behavioral information beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't detail what happens on failure or if the token is invalid, but given the annotations, this is adequate.

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, with two sentences that cover purpose, usage, and alternatives. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and provides actionable steps without unnecessary fluff.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the main use cases and provides clear instructions. However, it could mention what the response looks like or any error handling, but for a simple auth tool, this is 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'token' parameter as a JWT to paste for session-only login, and clarifies that calling with no args returns the link. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could be more explicit about the token format and validation.

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 authenticate the user for MCP.AI IDE agents by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on authentication, while siblings like 'connect' and 'marketplace' serve different functions.

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 explicit usage guidance: it explains two methods (permanent via config header, session-only via token argument), and when to call with no args to get the link. It also mentions the alternative of adding the token to the server config, which is a clear alternative to using this 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the two possible response shapes based on connection state, which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies what the tool reveals about current connectivity.

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 succinct sentences that immediately state the tool's purpose and key conditional outcomes. No redundant information or filler, making it highly efficient 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 the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description sufficiently explains the main outcomes and mentions key fields like authenticated, pending[], and connect_url. It could be slightly more explicit about what pending[] contains, but overall it is complete for a status check 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 and schema coverage is effectively 100%. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters and correctly focuses on outputs.

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 further specifies the output conditions (authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all connected, and connect_url with per-install URLs when credentials are missing), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like authenticate.

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 as a status checker but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. It provides conditional outcomes based on connection state, which hints at when to use it (e.g., before authenticating), but lacks explicit 'when not to use' or reference to other tools like authenticate.

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 read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful details about authentication (no platform credentials), payment (prepaid credit), and data responsibility (client as controller under LGPD), which go beyond the annotations and clarify operational and legal implications.

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 with some redundancy (e.g., 'fonte oficial' mentioned twice) and includes legal boilerplate. It is not overly long but could be more streamlined and 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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not state what the tool returns or how to use the input parameters. It only mentions that it queries information, leaving the expected result and usage context incomplete.

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 lists three parameters (cpf, cnpj, name) but provides no descriptions. The description does not mention or explain any of these parameters, leaving their purpose and usage completely unspecified. This is a significant gap for effective invocation.

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 it is a query for CVM participant information from an official source, distinguishing it from unrelated siblings like authenticate or marketplace. It is specific enough to understand the tool's core 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 context about the official source, lack of platform credentials, and prepaid credit usage, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. Since siblings are unrelated, the lack of explicit differentiation is less critical, but the guidance is implicit rather than direct.

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 indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, etc. The description adds critical behavioral details: 'invoke works even when the MCP is NOT installed' (one-off run without toolkit bloat), 'If the MCP needs a credential/login, invoke returns a connect link; if it is paid and the wallet is empty, invoke returns a checkout/top-up link', and 'Writes (install/uninstall/subscribe/cancel and the one-off install behind invoke) require workspace owner/admin.' 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?

The description is a long single paragraph but is densely packed with essential information. It front-loads the core purpose and flow, then builds out wearables. Every sentence adds value, but the lack of bullet points or segmentation makes it harder to scan. Given the tool's complexity (14 actions, 23 params), this length is justified, yet it could be better 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?

Given the high complexity (14 actions, 23 parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the main flow, write permissions, auth/payment behavior, and the prompt library. It does not explain every action (e.g., 'resume', 'cancel' with enums) but these are secondary. It also doesn't describe return formats in detail, but since output schema is absent, the description's hints (e.g., 'returns one MCP's full profile', 'returns a connect link') are 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?

Schema has 0% description coverage and 23 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the key 'action' parameter's roles (search, describe, invoke, install, etc.) and mentions tool_id, mcp_id, prompt_slug, and prompt_vars implicitly. It also clarifies the prompt library parameters (search_prompts, get_prompt, publish_prompt). However, it does not explicitly detail parameters like 'limit', 'immediate', 'tier_slug', or 'cancel_reason' enums, though many are self-explanatory. Overall it adds substantial meaning but not exhaustive.

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: 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It is specific (catalog + runtime), covers capability requests, and distinguishes from siblings by describing its unique multi-action nature (search, describe, invoke, install, prompt library) versus sibling tools like authenticate or report_bug.

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 which action: 'action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns one MCP's full profile ... so you pick the right tool_id → invoke RUNS that tool.' It also states 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit ... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and explains when invoke returns connect/checkout links. This is exemplary usage 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 indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, with idempotentHint=true. The description aligns with these: reporting a bug is a non-read, non-destructive, idempotent action. The description adds a bit of context by mentioning the conversation array for reproduction, but it does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or rate limits. It neither contradicts nor richly enhances 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and a practical tip. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 (3 flat params, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: what the tool does and how to improve reproduction via the conversation array. It could be more exhaustive (e.g., mention the 'context' parameter), but for a feedback tool, it is adequately complete and leaves little ambiguity for an agent.

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% (no descriptions in the schema), so the description must compensate. It barely does: it mentions the 'conversation array' (mapping to the 'conversation' property) and implies the 'message' via 'report', but 'context' is entirely unaddressed. The description adds some meaning but is insufficient for all three parameters, especially since the required 'message' is only implied.

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 report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback. The verb 'report' and the resource (bug/feedback) are explicit, and the tool is distinct from its siblings (e.g., 'authenticate', 'marketplace'). It fully clarifies 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 a concrete usage hint: 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' This tells the agent what to include when invoking the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though no obvious alternative exists among the siblings. Slight deduction for not being more explicit about when to use this over others.

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 clear. The description adds the specific types of version information (platform and adapter) but does not detail output format or potential side effects, which is acceptable given the simple nature and annotation coverage.

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, clear sentence with no extra words. It is front-loaded and efficient, providing exactly the necessary 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 tool with no parameters and simple functionality, the description is sufficient. The output schema is absent, but the description does not need to explain return values for a version check. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 is fully documented (100% coverage). With no parameters to explain, the baseline is 4, and the description appropriately adds no unnecessary parameter information.

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 shows current MCP platform and adapter versions, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on version details, which is unique among the listed 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?

The description implies when to use this tool (to check versions), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Sibling tools like authenticate or connect are not referenced, so some guidance is missing.

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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful semantic output context (what state fields are returned) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as latency, caching, or dynamic refresh behavior. It neither contradicts nor heavily enriches 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, well-structured sentence fully describes the tool's output with a colon-punctuated list of return contents. Every element is relevant and there is no redundant or filler 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, the description is mostly complete: it enumerates the main return categories (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). It stops short of specifying data types or exact response structure, but that is not necessary for an agent to select and invoke this 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description appropriately focuses on what the response contains rather than parameter details, matching the baseline for a parameter-free tool.

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 names a concrete resource: the current toolkit state. It itemizes the exact content (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like authenticate, connect, and show_version.

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 is the tool to inspect overall toolkit status, including connection details and per-MCP tool counts. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the content makes its situational use obvious relative to action-oriented siblings like connect and authenticate.

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