DETRAN TO: Impressão de CRLV

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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false), the description reveals important behavioral traits: permanent non-expiring connection via config vs session-only via token, and the behavior of no-args invocation returning a link. This adds meaningful context not available from structured fields.

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 long but every sentence is information-dense and well-structured: purpose stated first, then best-practice config method, then alternative session flow. No filler words; layout effectively distinguishes options.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is comprehensive: covers both authentication paths, the exact input format, and the no-args behavior. It doesn't describe possible errors but that's not critical here, making it sufficiently complete for practical 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates fully: it explains the token parameter is a JWT, shows the exact call syntax `{ token: "<jwt>" }`, and clarifies that omitting args leaves the link. This gives the agent crucial semantic meaning beyond the bare string schema.

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 this is an authentication tool for MCP.AI, explaining the browser login flow and token retrieval. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' by explicitly focusing on token-based authentication rather than general connection management.

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 usage guidance: add token to server config for permanent connection or pass token here for session-only login, plus call with no args to get the link. While it doesn't reference sibling tools, it gives clear context and alternatives for when each mode is appropriate.

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 reveals behavioral details beyond the annotations: it specifies the exact return structure (authenticated:true and pending[]) and the alternative behavior when credentials are missing (returns connect_url for toolkit and per-install URLs). This is consistent with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and provides clear expectations 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?

The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs.'). It then efficiently explains the two possible states without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly effective and easy to parse.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main operational contexts: the fully connected state and the missing-credentials state. It does not mention edge cases like partial provider connectivity, but given the simplicity of the tool, the provided information is likely sufficient for most use cases. It could be more exhaustive, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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 for the description to add. Per the rubric, when schema coverage is high (100% here, since no required parameters), the baseline is 3. The description does not mention parameters because none exist, so it neither adds nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It also explains two distinct outcomes (all providers connected vs. credentials missing), providing a specific and unambiguous purpose that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' which likely performs authentication rather than status checks.

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 implicit guidance by explaining the two scenarios (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs. connect_url when credentials are missing). This helps a user infer when to use the tool (e.g., to check connection readiness). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'authenticate', so it is slightly less explicit than ideal.

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 readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the prepaid billing model, lack of platform credentials, official/public data source, and LGPD controller responsibility. It does not cover output details or failure modes, but the annotations already establish the 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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and supporting operational/legal context in the following sentences. It is slightly dense but every sentence adds relevant 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?

It covers the key operational and compliance aspects: payment, credentials, official source, and LGPD responsibility. However, with no output schema and no parameter semantics, the agent still lacks information about the returned CRLV data and input formats.

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 provides no parameter-level guidance, and the schema has 0% coverage. The parameter names placa, renavam, and documento_proprietario are somewhat self-explanatory, but formats, relationships, and requirements are not explained anywhere.

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 opening phrase 'DETRAN TO: Impressão de CRLV, consulta em fonte oficial' clearly identifies the specific resource and action. It is unmistakably distinct from the generic sibling 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 gives clear operational context: use it for CRLV queries from DETRAN TO, no platform credentials needed, and prepaid per-query billing. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling tool competes with this function.

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 discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: invoke runs uninstalled MCPs one-off without bloating the tool list, returns connect/checkout links when credentials/wallet are missing, and writes require workspace owner/admin. It also mentions installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace flags. 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 long but front-loaded with the tool's purpose and core flow. Every sentence adds operational detail; however, the single dense paragraph is hard to scan and includes a typo ('pontualmente'). Structuring as bullets with per-action guidance would improve readability.

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 and no output schema, the description covers all major action categories, billing, auth, and the prompt library. It explains the install vs invoke distinction, connect/checkout flows, and permission requirements, making it a complete operational guide.

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% with 23 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the core action parameter and how mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, prompt_slug, etc. are used in the flow. However, several parameters (limit, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason) are not explicitly described, leaving gaps.

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.' It identifies the verb/resource (catalog and run) and distinguishes from sibling tools like authenticate/connect/report_bug. The description also outlines the core flow and sub-features.

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: 'Core flow: action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns one MCP's full profile... invoke RUNS that tool' and 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use.' It also names alternatives like request_mcp when nothing fits, and differentiates prompt library actions.

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 idempotent, non-destructive, and not read-only. The description adds that this is a reporting action but does not disclose side effects, expected outcomes, or error handling. It provides the instruction to include conversation for reproduction, which is mildly behavioral.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the purpose and includes a key usage note. No filler 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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and one parameter's role, but lacks details on message meaning, context, or when to use. Moderate completeness given the 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 has 0% descriptions, so the tool description must compensate. It explains the conversation array's purpose (for reproduction) but leaves 'message' and 'context' unexplained. Only one of three parameters is given meaningful context.

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: reporting a bug, missing feature, or sending feedback. It names the specific verb (report) and resource (bug/feature/feedback) and distinguishes from unrelated siblings like authenticate 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?

The description implies when to use it (reporting issues) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide conditions. It instructs to include the conversation array for reproduction, which gives partial context but no explicit 'when not to use' or prerequisites.

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 cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description does not contradict these annotations and adds a minor clarification about what is being shown, but it does not disclose any extra behavioral detail beyond that.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler words, no restatement of the title, and no unnecessary detail. Every word contributes meaning.

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 simple zero-parameter, annotation-rich, read-only version tool. The description sufficiently communicates what the agent will get back—the MCP platform and adapter versions—and no output schema or additional prerequisites are necessary for this level of 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 parameters and the schema covers all of them, so there are no semantics the description needs to clarify. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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 ('Show') and a precise resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from the sibling tools such as authenticate, connect, and 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. A user/agent can infer usage from the name, but the description does not help an agent choose between this and an info-oriented sibling like toolkit_info.

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 it as read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful context about the specific information returned (MCPs, connections, accounts, tool counts), which goes beyond basic safety flags and helps the agent understand the tool's scope.

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 that front-loads the purpose and enumerates the key output categories. No filler 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 zero-parameter read-only status tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the user can expect: installed MCPs, their connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is sufficient for the agent to decide when to call it.

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 is not required to explain parameters, and it correctly focuses on the return value 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?

Clearly states the verb 'Returns' and the resource 'current toolkit state' with specific details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect or authenticate, which are action-oriented.

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 for inspecting toolkit state but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like show_version. No exclusions or when-not guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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