DETRAN PE: Veículo

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

The description adds behavioral insight beyond the annotations by explaining that config-based tokens are permanent and non-expiring, while pasted tokens are session-only. It also clarifies the idempotent behavior (calling with no args returns a link, with a token performs login). Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true; the description complements this without 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 and well-structured, using a colon and clear sentences to convey the flow. It front-loads the key information (browser login, copy token) and then details the two invocation modes, ensuring every sentence earns its place without 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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: authentication flow, token handling, persistence options, and the no-args fallback. It is complete enough for an agent to use the tool without additional information.

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 coverage is 0% and the token is undocumented, but the description compensates by explaining the token is a JWT pasted by the user and how to pass it in the call. It adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it could have been even more explicit about the format or validation.

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: authenticate users by providing a browser login link, accepting a pasted token for session-only login, or suggesting a permanent config header. It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings by being the only authentication-related tool among the listed siblings, with a specific verb and resource.

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 guidance on when to use this tool (for logging in and obtaining/pasting tokens) and contrasts it with permanent config-based authentication versus session-only token paste. It also explains the alternative of using the config header, helping an agent decide the appropriate invocation.

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 (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds meaningful behavioral details about the return values based on the system state. It explains what happens when credentials are missing, which is not covered by 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, consisting of two clear sentences with no redundant or vague wording. It is well-structured, presenting the main purpose first, then the conditional behavior.

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 there is no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the possible return values (authenticated flag and empty pending array, or connect_url and per-install URLs). It covers the key scenarios without leaving major gaps.

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 the baseline score of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it does not attempt to do so, keeping the description focused on behavior.

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 returns connection status and URLs, using a specific verb and object. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate (which performs authentication) and show_version (which shows version info).

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 implicitly guides usage by describing the conditions under which different outputs are returned (all providers connected vs. missing credentials). It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, but the context makes it clear for checking connection status.

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 clear. The description adds valuable context: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, is paid per query with prepaid credits, and clarifies data is not confidential and the client is responsible for LGPD compliance. This goes beyond annotations and provides important operational and legal 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 a single paragraph with three sentences, each providing distinct information: purpose, operational details, and legal context. It is reasonably concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be more structured with bullet points or clearer separation of concerns, but it is not verbose.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It explains the business model and legal aspects but does not clarify how to use the parameters, what the response contains, or any prerequisites like needing login credentials or certificates. The complexity is moderate, but the lack of parameter guidance and output format makes it incomplete for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The description does not explain any of the 7 parameters (cpf, cnpj, placa, login_cpf, login_senha, pkcs12_cert, pkcs12_pass). It only mentions 'placa' implicitly as the required parameter but does not clarify the roles of login credentials or certificates, which are likely needed for authentication to the official source. This is a significant 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 the tool queries vehicle information from DETRAN PE official source, specifying the resource (vehicle) and the scope (DETRAN PE). It distinguishes from siblings by being the only vehicle consultation tool among generic platform 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 explains the context (official source, paid per query with prepaid credits, no platform credentials needed) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It implies usage for legitimate vehicle data queries but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or 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?

Despite basic annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), the description adds critical behavioral context: invoke works even when the MCP is not installed, returns connect links for missing credentials, returns checkout/top-up links for unpaid tools, retries after user action, and requires workspace owner/admin for writes. This fully discloses side effects and permission needs.

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 every sentence adds meaningful guidance for a complex 14-action tool. It is front-loaded with the definition, uses a clear flow (search → describe → invoke), and packs nuances like install vs invoke, auth/payment links, and the prompt library without 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?

Given 23 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the main discovery and execution flow, one-off versus permanent usage, billing/auth behavior, permission requirements, installed-state flags, and the separate prompt library subsystem. Nothing important is left unaddressed.

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 coverage, the description carries the burden and does clarify the central `action` parameter (search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, cancel, etc.) and the flow that connects `mcp_id`, `tool_id`, and `arguments`. However, many of the 23 fields (e.g., `limit`, `tier_slug`, `immediate`, `conversation`, `prompt_targets`, `report_context`) remain unexplained, so parameter semantics are only partially compensated.

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 clear definition: 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It then explains the core action flow (search → describe → invoke) and distinguishes itself from siblings by covering the prompt library. This is a specific, resource-bound purpose with clear scope.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' versus 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT.' It also tells the agent when to use request_mcp ('when nothing fits') and explains that search/describe discover, while invoke runs. This goes well beyond implied usage.

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 communicate that this is not read-only and not destructive, and the description adds the behavioral requirement to include the conversation array for reproduction. It does not disclose what happens after submission (e.g., ticket creation, rate limits) but is not misleading.

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 efficient sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and the key usage requirement. No wasted words or redundant 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?

For a simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and one parameter. However, it omits clarification of the required 'message' field, the optional 'context' field, and any information about the result of the report, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 only explains the 'conversation' parameter's purpose ('recent messages for reproduction') but leaves the required 'message' and optional 'context' parameters unexplained. This is a significant gap for the 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 function with specific verbs and resources: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This distinguishes it from unrelated siblings like authenticate, connect, or marketplace, and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it, and the instruction to include the conversation array provides practical guidance. However, there is no explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' or exclusionary language, and sibling tools are unrelated so no comparison is made.

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 annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds minimal extra context (that it reports current versions) but does not elaborate on potential side effects or data sources. It is adequate but not enriched.

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 short sentence that conveys the essential function without verbosity. It is efficient and to the point.

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 simple, with no parameters and no output schema. The description fully covers its purpose and does not require additional context. It is complete for its intended use.

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 baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter-related information, but since none exist, it 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 show current MCP platform and adapter versions. It is specific and unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from other tools by focusing on version information only.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident. Usage is implied: whenever version info is needed. No exclusion or comparison with other tools is provided.

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 bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by enumerating exactly what information the tool returns, which helps the agent understand the tool's output without needing an output schema. No side effects or hidden behaviors are disclosed, but none appear needed for a read-only state query.

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 entire description is a single, well-structured sentence that starts with the verb 'Returns' and lists the key output categories. Every clause adds useful detail, with no redundant or filler wording.

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?

This is a zero-parameter, read-only informational tool with no output schema. The description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what the tool returns, including installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. It is complete enough for reliable selection and 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is irrelevantly covered at 100%, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description has no parameter burden to carry, and it correctly focuses on the return content instead.

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 names the exact resource 'current toolkit state', then breaks down what that state includes: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, 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 the tool is for inspecting toolkit state, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives, mention prerequisites, or exclude use cases. The context is clear enough for a simple read-only info tool, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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