Dataprev: Fator Acidentário de Prevenção (FAP)

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

Annotations include idempotentHint=true, which is partially reflected by the description mentioning 'non-expiring' and 'session-only' but not explicitly stating idempotency. The description adds behavioral context about the token expiration (permanent vs session) and the dual mode of authentication, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects like creating a session or invalidating previous tokens, but given idempotentHint=true, 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 a single paragraph that is informative but slightly dense. It front-loads the audience ('MCP.AI for IDE agents') and the core action ('log in in the browser'), but the sentence structure could be simplified for clarity. It earns its place with actionable steps, though it could be broken into bullet points for better scannability. Overall, it is concise with minimal 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 the tool's moderate complexity (two usage modes), the description covers the key aspects: the login flow, token acquisition, and both invocation paths. There is no output schema, but the tool likely returns a link or confirmation, which is implied. The description lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid token), but the provided guidance is sufficient for an agent to orchestrate the authentication flow with the user.

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 only one optional parameter 'token' with 0% description coverage, so the description must explain its meaning. It does so: 'paste it here for a session-only login: call with { token: "<jwt>" } after the user pastes'. It also clarifies what happens when no args are provided (get the link). This adds semantic meaning beyond the bare schema, but could be more explicit about token format validation, though not 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 that this tool is for authentication in MCP.AI, specifically for IDE agents. It distinguishes itself from siblings by describing the login flow (browser login, token copy) and the two ways to use it (config header vs. session token), which is a specific purpose not covered by any sibling names.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'log in in the browser, copy the access token' and explains the best approach (add to config) versus session-only login. It also instructs when to call with no args to get the link, enabling the agent to prompt the user appropriately. This is strong usage guidance, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it vs siblings, but siblings are unrelated.

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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. Description adds value by specifying exactly what the response contains in different states (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs. connect_url), beyond what annotations cover.

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, followed by relevant condition-detail. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Covers the two primary scenarios (all connected, credentials missing) but leaves intermediate states (partial connectivity) implicit. Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

No parameters exist, so description correctly omits param details. Baseline of 4 applies since there is no parameter documentation burden.

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?

Clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, with specific outcome conditions for connected vs. missing-credentials states. This distinguishes it from sibling 'authenticate' which actually performs authentication.

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?

Implies use for checking current connection status, but does not explicitly contrast with the 'authenticate' sibling or state when not to use. Provides outcome context for when all providers are connected vs. missing credentials, giving clear situational awareness.

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 mark readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive; the description adds meaningful context: the query is hosted by the platform, paid per consultation with prepaid credit, requires no platform credentials, and concerns non-confidential official data with LGPD responsibilities. 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 compact and front-loads the core purpose in the first clause. The following sentences about hosting, payment, and LGPD are relevant but add some length; still no wasted filler.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it omits return-value behavior, authentication semantics (why login/pkcs12 params exist given 'no platform credentials'), and the meaning/format of ano_vigencia. Payment and legal context are helpful, but operational essentials are missing.

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 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain login_cpf, login_senha, pkcs12_cert, pkcs12_pass, or ano_vigencia. Only the required cnpj_estabelecimento is inferable from the tool name. The description fails to compensate for missing schema documentation.

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 clearly states the action: 'consulta em fonte oficial' of Dataprev's FAP (Fator Acidentário de Prevenção). This is a specific query operation on an official resource, and it distinguishes itself from generic sibling tools like authenticate and marketplace.

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: use it to query official Brazilian FAP data, with prepaid credit and no platform credentials, and notes that data is the same as available to citizens. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient for this standalone query 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?

The description goes far beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by disclosing that invoke works even when the MCP is not installed, returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment, requires owner/admin for writes, and that search/describe flag installation state. No contradictions with annotations; it adds substantial 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 single dense paragraph that is not front-loaded with a concise summary; it mixes purpose, flow, edge cases, and permissions in a stream-of-consciousness style. While the length is justified by the tool's complexity, it could be better structured with bullet points or subheadings. It's more than necessary but not excessively verbose given the 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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers the full range of actions (search, describe, invoke, install, list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, and prompt library) and critical usage nuances like permission requirements and payment/auth flows. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to know when and how to use each sub-action.

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 explains the core 'action' parameter's enum values and key parameters like mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, and prompt-related ones, but leaves many others (limit, message, immediate, tier_slug, etc.) undocumented. It adds meaning for the most critical parameters but does not fully compensate for the low schema coverage, so a baseline of 3 with some extra is appropriate.

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 this tool is the official mcp.ai marketplace, covering both MCP/tool catalog and prompt library, with a specific three-step flow (search → describe → invoke). It distinguishes its role from siblings by naming the actions it exposes and the prompt library capability. This is a specific verb+resource+scope and differentiates from 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance for each sub-action: prefer invoke for one-off use, use install for permanent addition, and notes that subscribe/cancel handle billing. It also explains when not to install (bloat) and how to handle credential/payment flows. This is strong guidance on selecting between 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?

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) are present, but the description adds context about including conversation for reproduction. It does not explain the outcome or side effects beyond that, and the idempotentHint seems inconsistent with real-world bug reporting, but the description does not contradict it.

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 that are front-loaded with the main purpose, no fluff or unnecessary 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 feedback tool with 3 optional/required params and no output schema, the description covers the essential information. It lacks details on what happens after submission, but that is not critical for using it.

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%, so the description must clarify parameters. It mentions including conversation array for reproduction, which explains that parameter, but does not explain 'message' or 'context' beyond their obvious meanings. Partial compensation.

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 it reports bugs, missing features, or feedback, with a specific verb and resource. It is easily distinguishable 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 for reporting issues but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It provides only a general suggestion to include conversation for reproduction.

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 tool is clearly a safe read operation. The description adds the detail that it shows versions, which is consistent. Although the description doesn't add extra behavioral context like whether it requires authentication, the annotation coverage is sufficient and the tool is trivially safe.

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, highly concise, and front-loaded with the core action. Every word is useful, with no unnecessary filler.

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 parameters, no output schema, read-only operation), the description is complete enough. It aligns with annotations and clearly defines the tool's function. A fully comprehensive description might mention that it returns version strings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides all necessary information. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for zero params is 4, and the description adequately covers the purpose.

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 what the tool does: it shows the current MCP platform and adapter versions. This is a specific verb ('show') plus resource ('MCP platform and adapter versions'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' or 'connect' by focusing on version 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?

The description implies usage when needing to check versions but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives. Since there are sibling tools like 'toolkit_info' that might also provide version-related information, the description could be more explicit about exclusivity, but the context is fairly 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying exactly what 'state' means (MCPs, status, accounts, catalog counts) 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's value without fluff or redundancy.

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 information tool with no output schema, the description fully conveys the return semantics. It is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter documentation, 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 and resource: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and itemizes the exact aspects (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like connect, authenticate, 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 purpose is so clearly scoped that usage context is evident—an agent would know to call this when it needs toolkit state. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., show_version for version details).

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