DETRAN PI: Veículo

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds useful behavioral context: the no-arg call returns a login link, pasted tokens are session-only, and config-based tokens are permanent/non-expiring. This clarifies the persistence semantics of the operation without contradicting 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 compact and packed with useful instructions. The opening phrase 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)' is slightly unnecessary, but the rest is front-loaded with the core auth flow and earns its place. It is dense but not bloated.

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 one-parameter auth tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behaviors: obtaining a link, passing a token, and the difference between permanent and session-only login. It could mention error cases or what the tool returns, but it is otherwise complete for typical agent 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining the 'token' parameter. It does so by identifying the token as an access token/JWT, showing the exact call shape, and clarifying that omitting it returns a login link. This is meaningful semantic information beyond the bare schema field.

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 via a browser-issued access token, either by using a pasted JWT for session-only login or with no args to receive a login link. It is specific about the action and resources involved, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like '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 provides concrete usage guidance: best practice is to add the token to the server config for a permanent connection, while pasting it into the tool gives a session-only login. It also explains when to call with no args (to get the link). It does not mention when to avoid this tool, but the guidance is clear for the primary use case.

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 behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the output states (e.g., 'authenticated:true' vs. 'connect_url' when missing credentials) and mentions 'per-install URLs.' The annotations provide readOnlyHint:true and idempotentHint:true, which the description aligns with, adding information about the two possible success states. This is useful for agents to know what to expect.

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 then providing key output details. Every sentence adds value 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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains the main return states. It lacks a mention of error responses, but with such a quiet scope and no output schema, this is acceptable. The completeness is high for the tool's low complexity.

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 parametersached, and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing to document. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline score of 4 for no parameters 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 returns connection status and URLs, specifically mentioning 'authenticated:true' and 'empty pending[]' when all providers are connected.Length. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info', missing an opportunity to clarify its role as a status check versus a login 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 usage as a status-check tool, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like 'authenticate' for establishing connections. For a tool with no parameters and among siblings like 'authenticate', clearer guidance would be beneficial.

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. The description adds valuable context beyond these: payment requirement, absence of platform credentials, official-source nature, and data controller responsibilities under LGPD. No contradiction exists between description and 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 compact and front-loaded, opening with the core purpose and then adding payment and legal context. There is slight redundancy between 'consulta em fonte oficial' and the later sentence about 'fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros', but overall each clause contributes meaningful information without padding.

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 simple two-parameter lookup and lack of output schema, the description provides sufficient operational context: how to pay, what data source is used, and legal obligations. It does not explicitly describe the response shape or error conditions, but the phrase 'consulta informação... oficiais' implies the tool returns official vehicle data, which is likely adequate for this 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?

The schema has two required string parameters (placa, renavam) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain their meaning, format, or expected values. Although the names are recognizable in Brazilian Portuguese, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, making parameter usage ambiguous for agents unfamiliar with domain terms.

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 explicitly states the tool performs a vehicle consultation ('Veículo, consulta em fonte oficial') using official Brazilian sources, which is a specific verb and resource. It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like 'authenticate' and 'marketplace', which are unrelated platform capabilities.

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: the tool is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, and is paid per query with prepaid credit. It also advises that data is non-confidential and subject to LGPD compliance, which informs when it is appropriate to use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools 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?

Beyond the sparse annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: invoke runs a tool one-off without installing, may return connect/checkout links requiring user action then retry, and writes require owner/admin. It also notes search/describe flag installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace. 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 dense but front-loaded: it starts with the tool's role, then core flow, key behaviors, install vs invoke, and prompt library. Each section contributes, but it is a long paragraph that could be more scannable with bullets. Still, every sentence 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 tool with 14 actions and 23 parameters, the description covers the major flows, edge cases (auth, payment, permissions), and the secondary prompt library. It doesn't specify exact output shapes for each action, but it explains key outputs like connect links, checkout links, and shareable prompt links. Given the absence of an output schema, this is fairly 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the action enum values (search, describe, invoke, install, list_tools, prompt actions), the meaning of tool_id and arguments, and the prompt library parameters. However, several params (limit, query, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_comment, etc.) are not individually explained, though their context is implied by action names.

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 is 'the official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them,' which is a specific role. It describes the core search→describe→invoke flow and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., authenticate, connect) by focusing on discovery and execution of MCPs.

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?

It explicitly provides decision rules: 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use,' 'If the MCP needs a credential/login, invoke returns a connect link... then you retry,' and 'request_mcp asks us to build a NEW MCP when nothing fits.' It also states write operations require workspace owner/admin, giving clear when-to-use and when-not 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 readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the instruction to include the conversation array for reproduction, but does not disclose deeper behavioral aspects such as whether a report is sent immediately, any rate limits, or what happens on repeated submissions. It does not contradict 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by a direct usage instruction. No wasted words; every sentence 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 has 3 parameters and no output schema, so the description should explain what happens after reporting and cover all parameters. It does not describe the 'context' parameter, nor does it mention any return value or post-submission behavior. This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the 'conversation' parameter ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'), but leaves 'message' and 'context' unexplained. 'message' is required and its content is only implied by the tool's purpose. The description adds partial meaning but is insufficient for all three 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's purpose with a specific verb: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It identifies the resource (bug/feedback) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate and connect, which serve entirely different functions.

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 context on when to use the tool: to report bugs, missing features, or send feedback. It also gives a specific usage instruction to include the conversation array for reproduction. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, though no sibling tool serves the same 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds specifics about what is shown (platform and adapter versions), which is useful context. No contradictions 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?

A single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function. No wasted words, and the most important information is 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 zero-parameter, read-only version query with no output schema and accurate annotations, the description fully satisfies the need. Nothing more is required.

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 nothing to document. Baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description correctly omits any parameter details.

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 identifies the resource as 'current MCP platform and adapter versions,' clearly stating the tool's purpose. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are unrelated to version display.

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 when to use this tool: whenever version information is needed. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear given the sibling list and the single-purpose nature of the tool.

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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is to add context. It does: specifies exactly what state is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). No contradictions. Adds value beyond 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?

One clear sentence, front-loaded with the purpose, lists key output elements without verbosity.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully conveys what it returns (installed MCPs, status, accounts, tool counts). It is complete for the agent's needs.

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?

Zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for no params is 4. The description doesn't need to compensate, and it doesn't.

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 verb 'Returns' and the resource 'current toolkit state', listing specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which are action-oriented. No 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 clearly implies use for checking toolkit state, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusions. Context is clear (informational read), but no explicit usage guidance is provided.

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