DETRAN PA: Veículo

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description clarifies the behavior of creating a permanent connection versus a session-only login, and that calling with no args returns a link. It does not mention potential side effects but provides additional context not present in 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 moderately concise, covering purpose and usage in three sentences. It is well-structured with clear separation of the two authentication options, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

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 adequately covers the main workflow (getting a link, authenticating with a token, and establishing permanent vs. session connections). It lacks error-handling details but is sufficient for an authentication 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 explains the 'token' parameter as a JWT for session-only login and explicitly states it is optional (using no args gets the link). This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only defines the property type without description.

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 as authentication, explaining how to log in via browser and obtain an access token. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like 'connect' and 'show_version' by focusing solely on the authentication flow.

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 usage instructions, including two distinct methods (adding a permanent header or pasting a token for a session-only login) and how to invoke with or without arguments. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools but gives sufficient direction for when to use 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?

Even though annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, the description adds valuable conditional details: when all providers are connected it returns authenticated:true and empty pending[], and when credentials are missing it returns connect_url and per-install URLs. This goes 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds distinct information about behavior in different states. 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description fully covers expected behavior in both success and missing-credential cases. It is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it and interpret results.

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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters and it doesn't, which 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('connection status and URLs'), immediately clarifying that this tool reports status rather than establishing connections. This distinguishes it from sibling 'authenticate' and aligns with the title 'Connection 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 clearly implies this is for checking connection status, and contrasts two scenarios (all providers connected vs. credentials missing). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or say 'use authenticate to initiate connection'.

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, idempotentHint), the description discloses that the tool is pay-per-query with prepaid credit, requires no platform credentials, and accesses non-confidential, citizen-available official data. It also notes LGPD responsibilities, which are not captured in any annotation. These behaviors influence invocation decisions and cost awareness.

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 front-loads the main purpose but then becomes a single, comma-heavy, run-on sentence mixing operational, legal, and data-source details. Information like 'fonte oficial' is repeated, and the structure could be clearer with separate sentences or bullet points. It is not overly long but lacks conciseness due to 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 description covers purpose, cost, data source, and legal obligations, but it does not describe the return value or any error/edge cases. Since there is no output schema, the description should indicate what the query returns (e.g., vehicle data structure) to avoid ambiguity. The geographic scope is implied by 'DETRAN PA', which is in the tool name and opening.

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' with no descriptions, and the description does not explain their meaning, format, or required patterns. Although the description mentions 'veículo', it provides no additional context for these parameters, leaving the agent to rely on external knowledge. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate.

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 PA: Veículo, consulta em fonte oficial', which clearly states the tool queries vehicle information from DETRAN PA's official source. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' and 'marketplace', which serve entirely 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 implies usage (querying official vehicle data) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions. Sibling tools are generic platform operations, so there are no direct competing vehicle-query tools, but the description offers no explicit guidance.

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?

Despite annotations indicating readOnlyHint=false, the description goes beyond that by disclosing that writes require workspace owner/admin, that invoke can work for uninstalled MCPs, and what happens when credentials are needed (connect link) or payment is required (checkout link). It also explains the prompt library behavior, adding valuable context not in 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 long paragraph but effectively front-loads the core purpose and then covers the flow, permissions, and prompt library. It contains no fluff, though a more structured layout could improve scannability. Given the tool's complexity, the length is justified.

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 complex tool with 14 actions, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description covers the main functional areas (search, describe, invoke, install, list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, and prompt library), permissions, and edge cases. It is remarkably complete without needing an output schema.

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 significantly by explaining the action parameter's main values (search, describe, invoke, install, etc.) and linking related parameters (mcp_id, tool_id, prompt_slug). However, some parameters like limit, report_context, and request_details are not explicitly described, leaving a small 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 that this is the official mcp.ai marketplace, a catalog of every MCP/tool, and the way to run them. It enumerates specific actions and distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info by explaining its core search-describe-invoke flow.

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 explicitly differentiates when to use invoke vs install ('Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use'), explains search vs describe vs invoke, and mentions alternatives like report_bug and request_mcp when they apply. This is exemplary guidance.

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=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral context. It does mention including the conversation array 'for reproduction', which clarifies intent but doesn't disclose outcomes 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose and a key usage detail.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description is adequate but not thorough. It clarifies the conversation parameter but omits meaning for 'message' and 'context', and doesn't explain what the tool does after submission. A bit more detail would make it complete for a simple 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It only explains the 'conversation' parameter (for reproduction), leaving 'message' and 'context' largely unaddressed. This is a significant gap for a required parameter.

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 a specific verb and resource, and no sibling tool competes for this role.

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 the tool (when reporting issues), and the sibling set shows no overlapping functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, reducing it from a 5.

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 destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the specific subject ('platform and adapter versions') and the 'current' qualifier, which gives useful context beyond the annotations. It does not introduce contradictions.

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, information-dense sentence with no wasted words. It fully communicates the tool's purpose without elaboration, making it highly concise and well-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 simple, parameterless, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies what versions are shown (platform and adapter) and that they are current, which is all an agent needs to know to invoke and interpret the results.

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 complete coverage. According to the baseline rule, the score is 4 because no parameter documentation is needed, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's action rather than non-existent params.

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 a specific action ('show') and resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and report_bug, 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 implies usage when the agent needs to check version information. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the context is clear since no sibling tool overlaps with this function. It earns a 4 for clear implied usage without 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 already declare readOnlyHint=True, idempotentHint=True, and destructiveHint=False, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the exact contents of the returned state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not introduce ambiguity or contradictions.

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 sentence that immediately states the action and the key output details. Zero filler, perfectly front-loaded, and every clause adds value.

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 a simple read-only query with no parameters glaringly missing, and annotations cover safety. The description fully specifies what the user gets back (installed MCPs, status, accounts, tool counts), which is all that is needed for an agent to decide to call it. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by enumerating the content.

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 no parameters, so the description carries no param-specific info. Per the rubric, zero parameters give a baseline of 4. The description is appropriate since there is nothing to explain.

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 'returns' with a clear resource 'current toolkit state' and enumerates exactly what it includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate or connect, which are action-oriented rather than informational.

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 obvious (read-only state inspection), and it is implicitly the go-to tool for overviewing the toolkit. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes it clear when to use it. A slight deduction for not stating 'when not to use' or naming alternative tools for getting specific info.

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