DETRAN PB: Licenciamento

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

Description explains that calling with no args returns the link, and with token authenticates. While annotations provide idempotent hint, the description adds context about token types and permanent vs session behavior. It could mention side effects like token validation but is largely transparent.

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?

Description is moderately long but every sentence adds value. It front-loads the purpose and then gives usage instructions. Not overly verbose, but could be condensed slightly without losing information.

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 simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers both usage patterns and prerequisites. Some detail on error handling or expiration could be added, but it's adequate 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 only parameter 'token' is explained as a JWT for session-only login. Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by defining the token's purpose and format.

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: 'log in in the browser, copy the access token' and provides two modes of authentication. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing solely on authentication, unlike connect or 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?

Explicitly explains when and how to use: add token to config for permanent connection, paste for session, or call with/without token to get link. Also differentiates between the config approach and the session-only approach, giving clear 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by explaining the conditional response shape (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs. connect_url when credentials are missing). This goes beyond the annotation safety profile.

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 primary purpose, and each sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. No irrelevant details.

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 sufficiently explains the return values under the two main conditions (all connected vs. missing credentials). This covers the essential behavior of a simple status tool with good annotations and no parameters.

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 correctly avoids any parameter-specific details since none exist.

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, with specific output conditions. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'authenticate' tool by focusing on status/URL retrieval rather than performing authentication.

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, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'use after authenticate to verify all providers are connected'). No exclusion criteria or contextual cues beyond the tool's purpose.

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, but the description adds meaningful context: no platform credentials required, payment per query, data is not confidential, and LGPD responsibility on the client. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies operational and legal aspects. 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 a single paragraph containing essential details about the data source, payment, and LGPD compliance. It is not excessively long but includes some extraneous information about hosting and legal responsibility that could be moved elsewhere. It is reasonably structured but not as tight as a two-sentence 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what information the consultation returns. It only says 'consulta informação' without specifying the exact data fields. Additionally, it does not mention possible dependencies (e.g., needing prepaid credit or a prior authentication step) beyond the payment note. The lack of output documentation is a significant gap.

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 the lack of parameter documentation. It does not mention any of the parameters (placa, ano, cpf, cnpj), their formats, or how they should be provided. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, critical details like plate format (e.g., Mercosul vs. old format) are omitted, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance.

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's purpose as consulting licensing (licenciamento) information from official DETRAN PB sources, with the verb 'consultar' and resource 'licenciamento'. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools, which are platform-oriented (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.). However, it does not specify the exact return details (e.g., vehicle status, debt amounts), which slightly reduces clarity.

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 needing official Brazilian licensing data and mentions payment per consult with prepaid credit. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but no direct sibling alternatives exist. Prerequisites such as having prepaid credit are mentioned, but there is no guidance on when this tool is preferred or discouraged.

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 adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: invoke works even when the MCP is not installed, runs one-off without toolkit bloat, returns connect links for auth, returns checkout/top-up links for unpaid services, and requires workspace owner/admin for writes. These disclosures meaningfully augment the readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true annotations, with no 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 long but densely packed, using a semi-structured flow (search → describe → invoke) and semicolon-linked clauses to maximize information per sentence. It front-loads the core purpose and covers numerous features without verbose filler. A slightly more formatted structure (bullets or headers) would improve scannability, but the density is justified given the tool's complexity.

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 the complete decision space: the discovery-and-invoke flow, installed vs non-installed behavior, auth and payment edge cases with retry instructions, permission requirements, the distinction between one-off and permanent installation, and the prompt library sub-workflow. With no output schema, this text alone provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool effectively in most scenarios.

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 carries the full burden and does so well: it explains the action enum values (search, describe, install, invoke, list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, search_prompts, get_prompt, publish_prompt), the mcp_id vs tool_id distinction, and the prompt_vars fill-in behavior. It does not document every parameter (e.g., immediate, tier_slug, message), but the core workflow and all action-specific params are semantically grounded.

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 precise definition: 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It enumerates specific capability requests and outlines the core action flow (search → describe → invoke), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like authenticate, toolkit_info, and detran_pb_licenciamento_consultar. The verb+resource structure is highly specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is pervasive: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', and 'list_tools lists what is callable right now.' It also directs users to request_mcp when nothing fits, and explains subscribe/cancel/report_bug roles. This is exemplary alternative/selection 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 indicate readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=true. The description adds the requirement to include a conversation array for reproduction but does not disclose any other side effects or outcomes. This is acceptable but minimal.

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 concise sentences with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the purpose and a key requirement.

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 provides enough context for a basic bug report, but it lacks details about expected input format, optional fields, or what happens after submission. Given no output schema, it is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage). The description hints at the conversation parameter but leaves context and message undefined. This is insufficient for the agent to understand the purpose of each 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 that the tool reports a bug, missing feature, or sends feedback, which is a specific action. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its focus on reporting issues.

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 a bug or providing feedback) and gives a specific instruction to include the conversation array for reproduction. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state conditions for non-use.

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's 'Show' wording aligns with the annotations readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a non-mutating, repeatable operation. It also adds specific detail about what is shown—platform and adapter versions—rather than merely restating the tool name.

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 that contains only the necessary information. It avoids filler, jargon, or redundant wording while fully stating the tool's function.

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 version tool, the description is complete enough. It clearly states what will be reported without needing an output schema; the simplicity and context provided are fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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 tool accepts zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output's subject matter.

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 'Show' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' This precisely differentiates the tool from siblings like authenticate, connect, or marketplace, which serve other 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 makes the tool's context clear: call it when you need to know the current MCP platform and adapter versions. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but no sibling tool overlaps with version reporting, so the usage intent is unambiguous.

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 provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds value by enumerating the specific categories of information returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which coordinates with the no-parameter schema. 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 a single sentence that packs all relevant information without filler. It is front-loaded with the main purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then elaborates with a concise enumeration of what that includes.

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 strong annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool will report, covers the scope, and there are no missing parameters or behavioral caveats to document. The presence of siblings like 'show_version' further clarifies that this is a broader state report.

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 schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). The description doesn't need to explain parameters; it focuses on the return content, which is the primary value. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for tools with no parameters that still describe what is returned.

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, specifying exactly what is included: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and the number of catalog tools each exposes. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'show_version' (version only) and 'connect' (connection 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?

The description implies this is a read-only informational tool for inspecting the toolkit's current state. It doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus siblings, but the context is clear enough given its purpose. It doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives, but the informational role is evident.

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