DPVAT: Emissão de Guia

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

The description explains the behavior beyond annotations: it returns a login link if no args, accepts a pasted token for session login, and suggests permanent config setup. It aligns with the idempotentHint (setting a token is idempotent) and readOnlyHint=false (mutates authentication state). The description adds value by detailing the flow, though it doesn't reveal return values.

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 run-on sentence, which hurts readability. While it contains all necessary information, the structure is disorganized, mixing setup advice with usage instructions, making it harder to parse quickly.

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 complexity (two usage modes, config integration), the description covers the overall flow but lacks important details like expected return values (e.g., success/failure acknowledgment), what happens on token validation, or how to debug issues. Sibling tools might share context, but the description doesn't reference them, leaving some gaps 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, and it does explain the token parameter in context (paste JWT for session login). However, the explanation is embedded in prose rather than explicitly tied to the parameter, and the no-args behavior is mentioned without clarity on expected 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 the tool authenticates with MCP.AI via browser login and token handling. It distinguishes itself by detailing the exact authentication flow and the different ways to provide credentials (config header or token argument), making its purpose unmistakable.

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 how to use the tool (browser login, copy token, paste it) and the alternatives for token storage (permanent config vs session-only). It doesn't explicitly exclude scenarios or mention sibling tools, but the context is well-defined.

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, destructiveHint:false, covering safety. The description adds the behavioral detail of two output states (authenticated vs missing credentials) and mentions pending array and connect_url, which is beyond what annotations provide. 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and efficiently explains the two output scenarios. No fluff, perfect structure.

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 params, no output schema), the description fully covers its behavior: what it returns in both situations. Annotations already declare safety, so this is complete for a status 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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add param info, and it doesn't. It correctly focuses on output behavior given the empty 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?

Clearly states it returns connection status and URLs, distinguishing it from siblings like authenticate (which performs auth) and toolkit_info. The verb 'returns' and specific resource 'connection status and URLs' make it 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?

Implies usage: to check connection status before or after authentication. It describes the two possible outputs, giving context on when to expect what, but doesn't explicitly tell when to use it vs alternatives. Still, it's clear enough, so a 4.

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 the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful extra context: payment is required per query, the information is not confidential, and LGPD controller responsibilities fall on the client. This 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The extra billing and LGPD sentences are relevant operational details, though they could arguably be trimmed without losing the essential tool 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?

For a simple two-parameter read-only query tool, the description covers purpose, cost, authentication, and data sensitivity. However, since there is no output schema, it does not clarify what the returned guide data looks like, and it leaves the required parameters implicit.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention 'renavam' or 'uf' at all. It therefore adds no meaning beyond the parameter names, which are domain-specific but not explained. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 names the DPVAT guide consultation as the main purpose and connects it to official Brazilian sources. 'Emissão de Guia' adds slight ambiguity by sounding like a generation action, but 'consulta' and the tool name make the read-oriented purpose clear. It stands apart from the unrelated sibling tools.

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 useful operational context: no platform credentials are needed, each query consumes prepaid credit, and the data is the same public citizen-available information. It implicitly tells the agent not to use authentication-related sibling tools, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this 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?

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: writes require workspace owner/admin, invoke runs uninstalled MCPs one-off, auth failures return connect links, empty-wallet paid cases return checkout links, and search/describe expose installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace. No statement contradicts readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, or destructiveHint=false.

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, front-loaded with purpose and core flow, and almost every sentence adds operational detail. However, it is one long unstructured paragraph covering 14 actions, which makes scanning harder than it needs to be. There is no filler, but the structure could be improved with separation by action group.

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 14-action, 23-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core catalog/run flow, permission requirements, auth and payment edge cases, installed-status flags, and the prompt library. It omits the resume action and does not detail every action-specific parameter, but overall it is unusually thorough and sufficient for the main workflows.

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 and 23 parameters, the description carries a heavy burden. It explains the action enum semantics, the search/describe/invoke flow, the role of mcp_id/tool_id, and prompt variables. However, many parameters such as limit, arguments, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, prompt_body, report_context, and request_details receive no semantic explanation, leaving clear gaps for a tool this large.

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 identity: 'the official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It names the concrete operations (search, describe, invoke, install, prompt-library actions) and gives the scope of user requests it handles, e.g., 'find an MCP that does X'. It also distinguishes its internal actions from one another, making the multi-action facade understandable.

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 explicit workflow guidance: search → describe → invoke, and tells the agent to use install only for permanent toolkit membership while preferring invoke for one-off use. It also routes billing to subscribe/cancel, feedback to report_bug, new-MCP requests to request_mcp, and separates MCP search from prompt-library actions. This is near-explicit when-to-use versus when-not-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 indicate the tool is idempotent and not destructive, but the description does not contradict these. However, it does not add behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as whether the report is stored, if it triggers notifications, or if it requires authentication. With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate for the minimal added value.

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 brief, two sentences, and front-loads the purpose. It is concise with no wasted words. However, it could have expanded on parameters without losing conciseness, but it remains structured and 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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters (one required), no output schema, and a basic schema without descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, the format of 'conversation' (despite saying array), or the meaning of 'message' and 'context'. Users may misuse the tool without more detail.

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 explain parameters. It only mentions the 'conversation' array for reproduction, but does not describe 'message' or 'context'. It adds some meaning for 'conversation', but leaves the required 'message' and optional 'context' unexplained, which 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's purpose: to report bugs, missing features, or feedback. It distinguishes itself from siblings which handle authentication, marketplace, version info, etc., though it doesn't explicitly compare to them. The verb 'report' and specific resource make it clear, but it could be more specific about what constitutes a bug vs feedback.

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 this tool (when a bug or feedback is encountered) and hints at including a conversation for reproduction, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives. It lacks guidance on when to use this versus other tools like 'marketplace' for feature requests. A minimal viable guideline, but not explicit.

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 safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the specific version categories (platform and adapter), which is useful, though not extensive. 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?

Single, concise, front-loaded sentence that conveys all necessary information. 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only version tool, the description is fully complete. No output schema or return format is specified, but that's acceptable given the simplicity and existing annotations.

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?

No parameters exist, so no additional parameter documentation is needed. Per rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are required.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Show' and a clear resource 'current MCP platform and adapter versions.' No ambiguity. Differentiates from siblings as none deal with versioning.

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?

Clear context: it's a read-only version info tool. No exclusions or alternatives needed because there are no similar sibling tools. Lacks explicit 'use when' but not required for such a simple 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?

The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful specifics about the returned data (installed MCPs, connection status, etc.), which goes beyond the annotations but does not introduce additional behavioral details like rate limits.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the purpose and clearly enumerates the return contents. It is concise and free of unnecessary verbiage.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. It is complete for the context, with no ambiguity.

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 zero parameters in the schema, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it correctly remains silent on this aspect.

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, listing installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or 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 implies this is for retrieving state information but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. There are no exclusions or specific context given, so it is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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