DETRAN PA: Licenciamento

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

The description reveals the tool's behavior: it either returns a login link (when called with no args) or accepts a token (when provided). It does not explicitly mention side effects or idempotency, but these are covered by annotations, and the description does not contradict them.

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 somewhat verbose and includes extra context like 'MCP.AI for IDE agents' and 'Best:' which could be streamlined. The main purpose is not front-loaded, and the structure reads more like user instructions than a concise tool description.

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 adequately covers the necessary usage context, including the two modes and the role of the token. It does not describe the output format or error cases, but given the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature, it is 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 description thoroughly explains the optional 'token' parameter, indicating it is used to complete authentication and that omitting it triggers the link retrieval. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's simple type definition.

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 indicates the tool is for authentication, providing instructions for both obtaining a login link and submitting a token. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are unrelated to authentication, though the description is somewhat verbose and not a crisp statement of purpose.

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 explains when to use the tool versus the permanent config approach (session-only vs. permanent), and also details the two call modes (with or without args). It does not compare with sibling tools since none are authentication-related, but the guidance on usage modes is explicit 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 readOnly and idempotent hints, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail by specifying exact returned fields under different conditions (authenticated:true with empty pending[], or connect_url and per-install URLs). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 main purpose, and every clause provides concrete detail about expected return values. No filler 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 simple zero-parameter status tool without an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and edge cases (all connected vs missing credentials). It could arguably list additional return fields, but it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 no parameter documentation burden. The description correctly focuses on the behavior instead, and the schema coverage is trivially complete.

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' with a clear resource ('connection status and URLs'), and explains conditional outcomes. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' which is about initiating auth, not checking 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 gives clear context about when the tool is useful—when checking if all providers are connected or when credentials are missing—implying it's the status-check tool rather than authenticate. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this instead of authenticate' or mention exclusions.

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, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds transparency about payment via prepaid credits and LGPD compliance, which is useful, but it does not clarify expected behavior like query result format or side effects.

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 but poorly structured for a tool definition, as it spends most of the text on legal disclaimers rather than the functional purpose. It lacks a clear summary of what the tool does.

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 two parameters having no descriptions and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what information is returned or how the query is performed, leaving the context insufficient 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 input schema lists 'placa' and 'renavam' as required strings with no descriptions. The description does not explain what these fields represent or any constraints (e.g., format, length), leaving parameter semantics completely ambiguous.

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 mentions 'Licenciamento, consulta em fonte oficial' but does not clearly state the tool's function, such as retrieving vehicle licensing status for a given plate and RENAVAM. The focus is on legal disclaimers rather than a specific action.

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 on when to use this tool or how it differs from alternatives (e.g., other DETRAN tools). The description only gives legal context, not usage scenarios.

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 reveals important behavioral details beyond annotations: invoke triggers a one-off install, does not bloat the tool list, returns connect/checkout links when needed, and writes require owner/admin privileges. These details are consistent with readOnlyHint=false and add meaningful context not available from 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?

Though long, the description is densely informative and well-structured: it front-loads the core flow, uses clear action chains with arrows, and highlights key distinctions like invoke vs install. Every major sectionearns its place, and the all-caps KEY marker helps scannability.

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 (14 actions, 23 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main flows, permission requirements, auth/payment failure modes, and the prompt library thoroughly. Minor gaps include the missing 'resume' action and some action-specific parameters, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to select and navigate the 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 description gives excellent semantics for the action parameter and core workflow terms like tool_id, mcp_id, and invoke, but 23 parameters exist with 0% schema coverage. Many fields such as limit, query, request_details, prompt_vars, tier_slug, and immediate are never explained, so the description only partially compensates for the 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as the official mcp.ai marketplace and the way to run MCPs/tools, explicitly covering catalog search, description, invocation, and the prompt library. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming its core actions and intent-based request coverage.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and actionable: prefer invoke for one-off use, use install only for permanent toolkit additions, use request_mcp when nothing fits, and use list_tools for currently callable tools. It also explains when auth/checkout links will appear and that writes require workspace owner/admin.

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 idempotentHint=true Ring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it expects a conversation array for reproduction, which is useful context. However, it doesn't elaborate on side effects, authentication needs, or what happens after submission, but given the simple nature and annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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, no waste. It states the purpose and the key instruction in under 25 words. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description covers the core purpose and the special reproduction requirement. It lacks parameter details, but the tool is simple and the schema has defaults. Given the low complexityaintost, it's mostly complete but could be better on parameter documentation.

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 'conversation' but doesn't explain 'message' or 'context'. The required 'message' field is not described at all in the description. This is a significant gap for a tool where the main input is 'message'.

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's for reporting bugs, missing features, or feedback, and mentions the conversation array for reproduction. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) which have different purposes.

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 clear context on when to use (for bug reports/feedback) and provides an instruction to include the conversation array. It doesn't explicitly exclude any scenarios or name alternatives, but the purpose is obvious enough that an agent would know when to invoke it.

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as return format or side effects, but it does not contradict the annotations. With annotations present, the description meets the baseline but adds little beyond them.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, containing zero waste. It is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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, read-only, idempotent version-checking tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does. The annotations provide sufficient safety context, and no additional information is necessary.

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 coverage is 100% (empty schema). Following the calibration baseline for 0 params, the description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and it appropriately stays silent. The baseline of 4 applies.

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 specific verb 'Show' and clearly identifies the resource as 'current MCP platform and adapter versions,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace. It fully states what the tool does without ambiguity.

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—checking platform and adapter versions—but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Given the simplicity of the tool, the implied usage is clear, but explicit guidance is absent.

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 idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Returns' is consistent and adds value by detailing the specific state information provided. It does not contradict annotations, though it does not add further behavioral detail like side effects or latency.

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 that concisely lists the key aspects of the toolkit state without fluff or redundancy. 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 zero-parameter status tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture of what the tool returns. It could benefit from an explicit note about when to call it, but the current description is adequate given the tool's simplicity.

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 an empty object with 100% coverage. The description need not explain parameters, and the baseline for no-parameter tools is 4.

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 explicitly enumerates the returned content: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from siblings like show_version, which likely focuses 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 the tool is for inspecting the current toolkit state but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions are stated, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose.

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