DETRAN AC: Veículo

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals the browser login flow, that no-args yields a link, that passing a token creates a session-only login, and that permanent non-expiring auth is best done via config. It does not mention failure/error behavior or what the token-return boundary state is, but the annotations do not contradict the text.

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 text is compact and structured around the two login paths: permanent config and session-only token. It stays efficient and front-loaded, though the opening phrase `MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)` is slightly redundant and adds some brand/context noise.

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 one-optional-parameter tool, the description covers the important flows: obtaining the login link, receiving a JWT from the user, and passing the token for a session-only login. It does not describe the returned login link's shape or failure modes, but the basic usage is complete enough for an agent to act.

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 input schema only says `token` is a string with no description. The description fully compensates: it tells the agent the token is a JWT pasted by the user after browser login, and that omitting the token returns a login link. That is clear meaning beyond the 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 identifies the tool as an authentication flow: log in the browser, copy the access token, and either configure a permanent header or pass a JWT for a session-only login. It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as connect, so it lacks a clear sibling distinction.

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: permanent auth belongs in server config as an Authorization header, session-only auth uses the token parameter, and no-args returns the login link. This is a clear when/when-not recommendation with an explicit permanent-vs-session decision.

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 establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about response states (authenticated true vs missing credentials) and URL details, going beyond the annotation's safety profile. It does not specify error cases, but for a simple status tool 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?

The description is concise (two sentences) and well-structured, covering both success and incomplete states without redundancy or ambiguity.

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 fully covers the two main states (all connected vs credentials missing) and mentions the output fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url). It could benefit from noting that it is safe to call or that it provides URLs for installation, but given it's a simple status toolandar no parameters, it's sufficiently 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?

No parameters are defined, and the schema coverage is effectively 100% (vacuously). There is nothing 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 clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, distinguishing it from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than initiating authentication. The verb 'return' is specific and the resource (connection status/URLs) is well-defined.

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 it (when you need to know connection status or get connect URLs) by detailing the two possible responses. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'authenticate' or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for a status-check 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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: prepaid per-query pricing, official-source nature, non-confidential data status, and LGPD data-controller responsibilities. It does not explain response behavior or credential handling, but adds useful operational 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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Each sentence adds operational or legal context, though the legal phrasing is slightly dense. There is no wasted content.

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, no parameter descriptions, and four parameters, the description should explain inputs and expected results. It covers payment and legal context but omits parameter semantics and return behavior, leaving significant gaps for 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%, and the description does not mention placa, renavam, login_cpf, or login_senha. The agent receives no guidance on parameter formats, required credentials, or how the parameters relate to the query. The description adds no semantic value for parameters.

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 opens with 'DETRAN AC: Veículo, consulta em fonte oficial', clearly identifying a query/read operation for vehicle data from DETRAN AC. The verb 'consulta' and resource 'Veículo' are specific, and the DETRAN AC scope distinguishes it from the generic sibling 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 provides clear operational context: hosted by the platform, no platform credentials required, prepaid credit per query, and official/public data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is clear from the context.

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 (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description reveals critical behavioral traits: invoke works even when the MCP is not installed, runs one-off without toolkit bloat, returns connect/checkout links on auth/payment failures, and writes require workspace owner/admin. It clearly states what happens in edge cases (credential needed, empty wallet) and the retry flow, which is far richer than the annotations alone.

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 but well-structured, flowing from marketplace core flow to invoke nuances to permissions and the prompt library. Every sentence adds significant information, and the length is justified given the tool's complexity (14 actions, 23 params). It could be slightly more scannable with bullet points, but it remains efficient and front-loaded with the most important facts.

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 output schema and 23 parameters, the description covers the full functional surface: search/describe for discovery, invoke for one-off execution, install for permanence, subscribe/cancel for billing, report_bug/request_mcp for feedback, and prompt library operations. It also addresses auth requirements and edge cases (connect/checkout links). The description is complete enough for an agent to operate the tool confidently.

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, the description compensates by explaining the core action parameter and its values (search, describe, invoke, install, etc.) and how parameters like tool_id, arguments, and prompt_* fit into flows. However, not all 23 parameters are individually described (e.g., limit, immediate, cancel_reason), leaving some ambiguity for edge-case actions. Still, the high-level parameter semantics for the primary use cases are well covered.

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.' This distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly covering marketplace capabilities (search, describe, invoke, install) and the prompt library. The core flow (search → describe → invoke) is articulated with specific verbs and resources, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 relative to alternatives: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit.' It also explains when to use subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, and the prompt functions. This directly addresses selection among sibling tools and internal 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 convey idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the useful context that this tool is for reporting issues with reproduction data, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens after submission. 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 only two short sentences, front-loading the core purpose and including a critical usage note. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy 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?

For a tool with 3 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description provides the essential purpose and one key parameter hint. It falls short by not explaining the required message field or the optional context field, making the guidance incomplete but still minimally viable.

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. It partially explains the conversation parameter ("Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction") but leaves the required message parameter and the context parameter unelaborated, forcing the agent to infer their meaning from the tool name alone.

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." The verb "report" and the resource types (bug, missing feature, feedback) are specific and distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, 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?

The description establishes a clear usage context: use this tool to submit bugs, feature requests, or feedback. It also gives a specific instruction to include the conversation array for reproduction, which helps the agent know what to provide. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or describe when not to use the 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering safety. The description adds that it shows platform and adapter versions, providing output context. No further behavioral details (e.g., network calls) are disclosed, but the annotations suffice for a simple version check.

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?

Single sentence with no redundant words. The verb 'Show' is front-loaded, and the sentence is perfectly concise.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description adequately conveys what it returns (current versions). It doesn't detail the exact output format, but for a simple version tool this is acceptable and complete for agent 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no irrelevant 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?

Description clearly states the tool shows current MCP platform and adapter versions. The verb 'show' and specific resource distinguish it from the unrelated sibling tools (authenticate, connect, 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?

Description gives no explicit usage context or alternatives. While the purpose is obvious, there is no guidance on when to use this tool vs. others, no prerequisites, and no mention of when not to use. Adequate but lacking contextual direction.

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 specificity about what state is returned, which is useful. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional context about the output.

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, concise sentence that efficiently lists the returned information. It is well-structured and free of 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?

Although no output schema is provided, the description clearly enumerates the key elements of the return (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This gives a good understanding of the output, though the exact format is not specified.

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, so schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, a high coverage baseline of 3 applies. The description does not need to explain parameters, and none are present.

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: returning the current toolkit state, enumerating installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. It is specific and distinguishes 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 when to use this tool (when needing the current toolkit state) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage.

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