DETRAN CE: Certidão Negativa de Débitos (por placa)

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

The description discloses key behaviors: it initiates a browser login, requires a token, and offers a non-expiring vs session-only option. It mentions that calling with no args gets a link, which is useful. Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, which aligns with the description's re-callable nature. No contradiction.

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, with two sentences that pack a lot of information: target audience, login method, configuration option, session-only alternative, and invocation patterns. No fluff, every phrase earns its place.

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 authentication tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: how to obtain the token, how to use it, and the difference between permanent and session connections. It doesn't explain error handling or response format, but given the simplicity, 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?

The schema provides a single optional 'token' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that 'token' is the JWT to paste, and that omitting it gets a link. This adds value, but it could be more explicit about the token format and what happens if an invalid token is provided. Baseline 3 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 the tool's purpose: to authenticate users for MCP.AI via browser login and token capture. It explicitly mentions the target audience (IDE agents) and the resource (MCP.AI). However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'connect', though 'connect' is likely different.

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 usage context: when to use this tool (to log in and authenticate) and how to use it (paste token or get link). It also gives alternatives (adding token to config for permanent connection vs session-only login). It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it, but the context is 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: it explains what happens in different states (returns connect_url when credentials missing) and mentions the return structure (authenticated and pending fields). This goes beyond the annotations, which is good since the annotations are minimal. It doesn't contradict annotations, and it adds value by describing response conditions.

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 long, both front-loaded with the core purpose and outcome. It uses efficient phrasing (e.g., 'When all providers are connected... When credentials are missing...') to describe conditional behavior without bloat. Every sentence serves a clear informational purpose, scoring high on efficiency.

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 simple read-only behavior, the description covers the key aspects: the response's structure and the two possible states. It doesn't describe the format of URLs or the exact structure of pending, but for a simple status tool, this is adequate. The presence of sibling tools like authenticate and toolkit_info suggests this is part of a larger connection flow, and the description gives enough context for an agent to understand when to call 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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter information, and the description doesn't need to explain parameters. Per the rubric, zero params earns a baseline of 4. The description adds context about the return values that depend on internal state, which is sufficient for a parameterless read-only status check.

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 returns connection status and URLs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate and toolkit_info. It explains behavior in different states (all connected vs missing credentials), which is more specific than a generic status check. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for connection-related actions, so it's a clear purpose but not fully differentiated from siblings.

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: it tells you what to expect when all providers are connected vs when credentials are missing, which helps an agent decide if further action (like using authenticate) is needed. But it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over others, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria. It's adequate but lacks explicit guidance on 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?

With annotations indicating read-only (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true), the description adds crucial context: it uses official sources, requires payment per query, and involves LGPD compliance. It also clarifies data is not confidential, which is important for agents handling privacy. 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 concise, packed with relevant information (source, payment, data privacy, legal note), and well-structured with clear sentences. No redundancy or 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 single parameter and presence of annotations, the description covers the essential context: official source, payment model, data sensitivity, and LGPD responsibility. It lacks explicit return format, but as there is no output schema, it could be improved by describing what the response contains (e.g., whether it's a Boolean or a document), but overall it's quite 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 parameter 'placa' is only defined as a string with no format or pattern. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it only mentions 'por placa' without specifying the expected format (e.g., Mercosur format, letters/numbers). However, the singular required parameter is simple enough that a baseline 3 is reasonable.

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 'DETRAN CE: Certidão Negativa de Débitos (por placa), consulta em fonte oficial', identifying the specific resource (vehicle plate) and action (query). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, the sibling tools are unrelated (auth, marketplace, etc.), so differentiation is implicit.

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 it's a paid query using prepaid credits and that it's hosted by the platform, which informs when to use it (when you need a negative debt certificate). However, it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, such as for other states or different types of certificates.

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 well beyond the sparse annotations, disclosing key behaviors: invoke runs uninstalled MCPs on a one-off basis, credential gaps return a connect link, empty wallets return a checkout/top-up link, and the agent should retry after the user resolves the link. It also states that writes require workspace owner/admin privileges, adding operational context absent from 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 dense and long, but the length is largely justified given the tool's 14 actions and multiple sub-flows. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear signposts like 'Core flow', 'KEY', and 'Use install only' to structure the information. A few promotional or repetitive phrases exist, but every major sentence contributes operational guidance.

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, no output schema, and very minimal annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the end-to-end discovery→describe→invoke flow, explains one-off vs permanent installation, describes auth and payment interruption behaviors, touches on billing actions, bug reporting, MCP requests, and the separate prompt-library feature, and even notes ownership requirements.

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 must carry the parameter-meaning burden. It explains the action enum and key concepts like tool_id, prompt_vars, and publish_prompt's shareable slug, but it does not map several parameters (e.g., limit, query, message, arguments, immediate, tier_slug, conversation, prompt_targets) or give their exact usage. It compensates for the main flow but leaves clear semantic gaps.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'the official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It clearly distinguishes the marketplace from sibling tools by framing it as the discovery, description, invocation, and management layer, while siblings like authenticate and report_bug have narrow scopes.

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 guidance on when to use which action: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit', and 'list_tools lists what is callable right now.' It also tells the agent what to do in credential/payment edge cases and names alternatives like request_mcp and report_bug.

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 idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it includes conversation for reproduction, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose what happens after reporting (e.g., whether it creates a ticket, sends an email, or logs), nor does it mention any side effects beyond the action. Since annotations already cover safety, the description adds some value but not extensive behavioral detail.

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-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is concise and well-structured, with no wasted words.

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 (3 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is adequate but not complete. It explains the purpose and the conversation parameter, but lacks details on expected message format, context usage, or what happens after submission. For a reporting tool, it could benefit from more context on how the report is processed, but it's not severely 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 compensate. It mentions 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction,' which explains the 'conversation' parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't explain 'message' or 'context' beyond what the schema provides (message is required, context has default). The description adds some meaning for conversation but not for the other parameters, so it partially compensates.

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.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on reporting issues rather than authentication, connecting, or querying certificates. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential other feedback tools, but given the sibling list, it's clear enough.

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 reporting bugs, missing features, or feedback) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. It mentions including the conversation array for reproduction, which gives some context, but lacks exclusions or alternative tool references.

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 covered. The description adds the specific scope of what is shown (platform and adapter versions) but does not disclose return format or any additional behavioral details 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently and is appropriately sized for a simple version-checking 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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does, and the annotations cover side-effect and safety behavior.

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 input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 action ('Show') and specific resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). This is a precise verb+resource formulation that distinguishes it from sibling tools like toolkit_info by focusing specifically 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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 well-covered. The description adds value by specifying what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose potential latency, whether it makes network calls to check status, or any rate limits.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then enumerates the specific data points. Every word earns its place with 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only informational tool with strong annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers what the tool returns in sufficient detail. The only minor gap is that it doesn't mention whether the status is real-time or cached, but this is a small omission for a status 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, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than 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 clearly states the tool returns the current toolkit state, listing specific elements: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it 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 this is a diagnostic/status tool, useful for checking the state of the toolkit before performing other operations. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear given the sibling tools are action-oriented (authenticate, connect) while this is informational.

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