DETRAN SP: Débitos e Restrições

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true)Skip, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that it is not a read-only operation (it modifies authentication state). It further explains the behavior of different invocation modes (with token vs without) and the permanence of the config approach. It does not contradict annotations, and adds context about what the tool does (getting a link vs accepting a token) that is not fully captured by the schema.

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, with three ideas packed into one long sentence. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose and usage, but the middle part about config headers is slightly verbose almonds. It is structured logically from purpose to usage, but could be broken into shorter sentences for clarity. It earns a 4 for being informative without unnecessary 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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it explains the two modes (permanent config vs session token) and the no-arg behavior. It might benefit from noting the URL to open or the format of the token, but given the low complexity, it covers the essential aspects. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand how to invoke it 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 has only one parameter 'token' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that the token is a JWT to be pasted, and it distinguishes between passing it and not passing it. It adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying the token's role and the alternative of calling with no args, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 authenticate the user with MCP.AI, providing both a browser login option and a token-based session login. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only authentication tool in the list, and it mentions context (IDE agents like Cursor). The verb 'log in' and 'authenticate' are specific, and it clearly associates the tool with the resource (MCP.AI).

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 provides two usage scenarios: 1) adding a bearer token as a header for permanent config, and 2) pasting a token for session-only login with no args to get the link. It also mentions when not to use it implicitly (it's for authentication, not for other tasks), and it contrasts with the permanent config option. This gives clear when-to-use 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the exact response shape in different states (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs connect_url). 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence provides meaningful information. No fluff 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 parameterless read-only status tool, the description covers the two most relevant scenarios (all connected vs missing credentials) and clearly states the return values. No output schema is needed, and the annotations cover safety.

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 needs no parameter compensation, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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 states a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('connection status and URLs'), and provides concrete details about the output in different conditions (authenticated vs missing credentials). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'authenticate', which performs the actual authentication 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 gives clear context for use: it is a read-only status check that also provides connect URLs when credentials are missing. This implies the agent can use it to check state or obtain URLs for authentication, though it does not explicitly name 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?

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: prepaid per-query billing, no platform credentials required, public/official data, and LGPD data-controller responsibilities. 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 three sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. Some legal and commercial boilerplate could be trimmed, but each sentence adds relevant operational or compliance context.

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 and six parameters at 0% description coverage, the description should clarify return values and authentication modes. It covers the purpose, billing, and legal status well, but leaves credential handling and expected response details unexplained.

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 needed to compensate, but it does not explain the required placa and renavam parameters or the optional credential fields (login_cpf, login_senha, pkcs12_cert, pkcs12_pass). Parameter names provide some inferable meaning, but no practical guidance is given.

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 a DETRAN SP query for debts and restrictions, using the specific verb 'consulta' and naming the resource. It distinguishes itself from the generic sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.) by its domain-specific 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 intended use is implied: use it to query official DETRAN SP debt/restriction information. It adds useful context about payment per query and official source, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not 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?

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description goes far beyond: explains invoke runs one-off without installing, writes require workspace owner/admin, describe returns full profile with pricing/auth, and the prompt library is separate from MCPs. No contradictions with annotations, and the added context is invaluable for anticipating 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 a single dense paragraph but front-loaded with the primary definition. It uses 'KEY:' to highlight the most important nuance, and then clearly separates prompt-library functionality. It's longer than typical descriptions, but given 14 actions and complex behaviors, every sentence earns its place. A bullet structure could improve scannability, but current prose is efficient.

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 23 params, no output schema, and no per-param descriptions, this description delivers an impressive amount of context: the search→describe→invoke workflow, permission requirements, edge-case behaviors (connect/checkout, retry), and the prompt library. It doesn't explain every parameter or return format, but the essential guidance for selecting and invoking the right action is present. Given the complexity, it is nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the core parameters through the narrative: action (all enum values described), query/limit (search), mcp_id (describe), tool_id/arguments (invoke), prompt_slug/prompt_vars (get_prompt), request_name/request_details (request_mcp), etc. However, several params (immediate, tier_slug, conversation, prompt_tool, prompt_targets, prompt_category, prompt_description) are left unexplained, so it's not fully compensating for the 0% coverage, but the major flow is covered.

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 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them', giving a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from siblings by positioning itself as the catalog/runner hub, and enumerates its many sub-actions (search, describe, invoke, install, prompts). This is a model of purpose clarity despite the breadth.

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 explains when to use each action: use invoke for one-off use and install for permanent toolkit addition, use list_tools for callable tools, subscribe/cancel for billing, request_mcp when nothing fits. It even gives a core flow (search → describe → invoke) and handles edge cases (connect link, checkout link, then retry). This is exemplary usage 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 idempotentHint=true, so no need to repeat. The description adds the instruction to include the conversation array for reproduction, but does not disclose side effects or data handling, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the key usage hint is included efficiently.

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 bug-report tool, the description covers the main purpose and a critical input (conversation). It lacks a mention of the context parameter, but overall is adequate given annotations and 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the conversation parameter as an array for reproduction but omits semantics for the required message and optional context parameters, providing only partial 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 clearly states it reports bugs, missing features, or feedback, and is distinct from sibling tools focused on authentication, connectivity, Brazilian traffic fines, marketplace, version, and toolkit 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?

Provides clear context for when to use (reporting issues or feedback) and hints at required input (conversation array for reproduction), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it's not 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds no new behavioral context, but with such strong annotations, the burden is lower. It provides the minimal necessary transparency for a read-only version 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 description is a single, concise sentence that states what the tool does without any redundancy. It is perfectly front-loaded and every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, strong annotations), the description is adequately complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (platform and adapter versions) and nothing else is needed. It could be argued that it doesn't specify the exact format of output, but that's not critical for selecting and invoking this 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 has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline is 4 for a no-parameter tool, and the description adds what can be expected from the output (platform and adapter versions), which is sufficient.

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 shows current MCP platform and adapter versions, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info, though it could be more explicit about the exact output format.

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 it's a simple version-information tool to be used when the user wants to know environment versions. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives, though given its simplicity this is acceptable but not outstanding.

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 safe read-only behavior is covered. The description adds useful context by detailing the snapshot contents (connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which 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?

A single well-structured sentence front-loads the main purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then more precisely describes the output scope. Every word adds value; no 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?

With zero parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description completely and adequately covers what the agent needs to know: the tool provides a read-only overview of installed MCPs, their status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. No additional context is needed.

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, and the schema properties are empty. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and since no parameter semantics are needed, the description fully satisfies this dimension.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates the exact contents returned (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or report_bug.

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 context is clear: this is for inspecting toolkit state rather than performing actions. It does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives or mention exclusions, but the read-only, informational nature is obvious and sufficient for a zero-parameter tool.

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