DER SP: Autuações

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

While annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, the description adds substantial behavioral context: the token can be passed directly for a session-only login or configured permanently via header, the distinction between permanent and temporary connections, and the behavior of calling with no arguments to receive a login link. 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 a bit longer than minimal, but every sentence contributes value: it explains the purpose, the two methods, and the parameter usage. It is well-structured with 'Best' and 'Or' to guide the agent. Slightly verbose but not padded.

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 (auth flow, two modes), no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains both how to obtain a token and the two ways to use it (config vs session), covering the full context an agent needs to handle authentication 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 schema has one optional string parameter 'token' with no description (coverage 0%). The description fully compensates by explaining that token is a JWT to be pasted for session-only login, and that omitting it triggers a browser-based flow. This adds critical meaning beyond the raw 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 the user by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes between two authentication modes (permanent config-based vs. session-only token) and explicitly mentions the parameter usage. This is highly specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like '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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Best: add it to this server's config as a header... Or paste it here for a session-only login.' It also explains that calling with no args returns a link, giving clear alternatives and setup instructions. This exceeds the minimum by clearly differentiating the two workflows.

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 the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by specifying exactly what is returned in connected vs. missing-credential states. It does not cover partial-connection behavior, but for a simple status tool this is strong additional disclosure.

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-loads the core purpose, and then provides concise conditional behavior details. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of annotation data or 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does cover the key fields and two important states. However, it leaves unstated what happens during partial connectivity or what pending[] contains when non-empty, so it is not fully 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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter detail for the description to clarify beyond the schema. Per the baseline rule for zero-parameter tools, a 4 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 identifies 'connect' as a connection-status and URL retrieval operation, specifying concrete outputs like authenticated, pending[], and connect_url. This distinguishes it from siblings such as authenticate, which presumably performs authentication rather than reporting status.

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 the tool is for checking connection status by describing conditional return values, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus authenticate or other siblings. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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 read-only annotations, the description discloses that it is a paid service (prepaid credits), requires no platform credentials, sources data from official Brazilian agencies, and is not confidential. It also addresses LGPD compliance, adding useful behavioral and compliance 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 short (a few sentences) and covers the essential purpose and legal notes. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the LGPD and data-control statements could be considered tangential to the core function. Overall, it is well-structured and compact.

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 no output schema and no parameter explanations, the description fails to provide the agent with sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly. It gives background on the data source and legal compliance but omits critical operational details such as how renavam or credentials are used, expected input formats, or error handling.

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 five parameters (renavam, login_cpf, login_senha, pkcs12_cert, pkcs12_pass) with zero descriptions. The tool description does not explain any of these parameters, leaving the agent without guidance on what each field means or how to fill them. This is a critical 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 it consults traffic fines (autuações) from DER SP official sources, which distinguishes it from platform management siblings. However, it could be more specific about the exact action (e.g., 'Consulta autuações de veículos').

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 mentions payment and credential requirements but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It also does not explain prerequisites or usage conditions beyond the payment note, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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 annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: writes require workspace owner/admin, invoke runs a one-off install without bloating the toolkit, and credential/payment failures return connect or checkout links. It does not contradict the annotations, though it omits response/error details for search/describe and other actions.

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, but it is a single long paragraph that would benefit from bullets or section breaks for scannability. It is not wasteful, but the structure is not as clean as it could be for such a multi-action 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?

For a 14-action tool with no output schema, the description covers the core lifecycle, invocation semantics, auth requirements, billing, installed flags, and the separate prompt library. It lacks structured return-shape details and some parameter semantics, but the coverage is strong overall 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 23 parameters, the description adds substantial meaning to the action enum and key workflow parameters like tool_id and mcp_id, but many parameters such as limit, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, and prompt_targets are left unexplained. It partially compensates for the schema gap but not completely.

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 defines the tool as 'the official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them', and it explains the core search→describe→invoke flow. It is specific and actionable, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as report_bug, authenticate, or connect, so it falls short of the top tier.

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/when-not guidance: 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT' and 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use'. It also clearly maps each action to its purpose, including list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, and the prompt-library actions.

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 non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds the specific instruction to include conversation for reproduction, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose any other side effects (e.g., whether a ticket is created, rate limits, or data handling), so it does not go beyond the annotations significantly.

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, consisting of two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the purpose and then provides the key usage hint. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

The tool is simple with only three parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main purpose and one key usage detail, but omits explanation of the context parameter and doesn't clarify what happens after submission. Since there's no output schema, the description could have mentioned expected outcomes, making it slightly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explicitly mentions the conversation parameter, but the context and message parameters are not explained (though message is self-evident). The context parameter is left ambiguous, and the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb (report) and resource (bug/feature/feedback), and it is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or show_version, which 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?

It provides a clear usage instruction: include the conversation array for reproduction. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, the sibling context makes it obvious that this is for issue reporting, and no other tool covers this functionality. The instruction is practical and actionable.

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 does not add extra behavioral context such as rate limits or authentication requirements, but given the tool's trivial read-only nature, the existing annotations fully cover its safety profile. The description neither contradicts nor enriches the annotation-provided semantics, placing it at a baseline adequate level.

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 consists of a single, straightforward sentence that conveys all necessary information without any wasted words. Every word serves a purpose, and important information is front-loaded with the action verb 'Show'.

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), the description provides complete context for an agent to know what to expect—a version string or list of versions. No additional operational details are needed for this read-only version query, and the description is fully adequate for an agent to use 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to clarify parameter meaning. The rule states that with 0 params, the baseline is 4. The description does not mislead and appropriately remains focused on what the tool outputs rather than 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 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions' uses a specific verb ('Show') and clear resource ('MCP platform and adapter versions'), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the exact information returned. This is a textbook clear purpose statement.

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 that this tool is used to display version information but does not explicitly discuss when to use it versus alternatives or provide examples of when not to use it. Since the tool is a simple versioning query and no alternative is evident from siblings, the usage context is implicitly understood rather than explicitly stated. This meets the 'implied usage' criterion but goes no further.

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 fully covered. The description adds the specific information returned (connection status, accounts, catalog counts) which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not describe output format, but with no output schema and zero params, that is acceptable.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core 'returns the current toolkit state' and then lists the specific items. No wasted words, perfectly 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only info tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does. It lists all the key information categories that would be returned é very detailed for such a tool. Sibling tools suggest it's a general utility, and the description is complete for its purpose.

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 any parameter semantics since there are none. It adds meaning by describing what the tool returns, which is beyond 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 uses a clear verb 'Returns' followed by the exact scope 'current toolkit state' and enumerates the specific pieces of information (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This leaves zero 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 makes the tool's purpose self-evident; it is a read-only informational tool, so usage context is obvious. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., to check connection status or debug setup), but given the clarity of 'Returns the current toolkit state' and the sibling tools, a score of 4 is appropriate for a simple info tool.

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