ECRVSP Documentos Transferência de Município: Estado

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

Without relying on annotations (which provide idempotentHint=true but no real description), the description clearly explains what happens during login, the difference between permanent (config header) and session-only behavior, and the exact return link generation. It doesn't mention any rate limits or security implications, but for an authentication tool, it thoroughly covers the main behaviors.

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 with multiple em-dashes and parentheticals, making it harder to parse than necessary. It packs a lot of information into an unstructured block, which impacts readability where bullet points or separate sentences would be clearer.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main user flows thoroughly: browser login, token configuration, and no-arg behavior. It could benefit from clarifying whether this is a valid OAuth redirect or direct token exchange, but overall it's sufficient for an agent 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 zero description coverage, but the description explicitly explains the 'token' parameter (a JWT string) and that calling with no args returns a link. It adds semantic meaning by distinguishing between pasting a token versus no args, which is essential for correct invocation. It could add validation details or example formats.

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 (log in) and resource (MCP.AI for IDE agents), and outlines the two usage modes with specific mechanics (browser login with token, or direct session token). It distinguishes itself from generic auth by mentioning the config header approach and providing a link when no args are given. However, it could be clearer on what the tool returns or confirms after successful authentication.

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 names the target audience (IDE agents like Cursor) and contrasts the two distinct usage scenarios: permanent config-based auth vs. session-only with token pasting. It provides clear step-by-step reasoning for when to use each approach, which effectively guides a user or agent toward the appropriate method.

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, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds behavioral detail about what it returns in different states (authenticated true vs pending URLs), which goes beyond the annotations. It is consistent with the read-only nature, and no contradiction is present.

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 informative: two sentences that clearly explain the main purpose and the two primary states. It is front-loaded with the core function, and every phrase adds value, such as specifying the return conditions.

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 is complete enough. It explains the return values in both scenarios (all connected and credentials missing). It does not describe error handling or format of URLs, but for a status check tool with no input, this is sufficient. Sibling tools like authenticate and marketplace provide context, but the description stands alone well.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description explains the output semantics (connection status and URLs) which effectively communicates what the tool does without parameters. Since there are no parameters to document, the description adequately fulfills the need.

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: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It specifies the resource (connection status/URLs) and the verb (returns), and the mention of 'authenticated:true and empty pending[]' and 'connect_url' distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate 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 provides clear context for when the tool is useful: checking connection status and obtaining URLs when credentials are missing. It implicitly suggests use for diagnosing connectivity but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like authenticate, which could be a sibling for initiating connections.

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: it discloses that queries require prepaid credits, that no platform credentials are needed (though external login params exist), that data is non-confidential, and that the client is responsible for LGPD compliance. These are important operational and legal details not captured in 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 brief (around 4 sentences) and each sentence contributes value—purpose, payment, data classification, legal responsibility. However, it begins by repeating the tool name, which is redundant, and the structure is a single dense block rather than clearly separated concerns. Overall, it is efficient and not padded.

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 (27 parameters, no output schema, no parameter descriptions), the description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does operationally, what the required inputs signify, how to structure them, or what response format to expect. An agent would be unable to invoke this tool correctly without external documentation.

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 offers no explanation of any of the 27 parameters. The schema has 0% coverage, and the tool is heavily parameterized with 19 required fields. Without any description of what fields like 'chassi', 'categoria', 'numero_espelho', or 'nome_anterior' mean or their format, the description fails to assist an agent in constructing a valid request.

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 the tool performs a 'consulta' (consultation) of 'Documentos Transferência de Município' but does not clearly specify what exact data or status is returned. It mentions it queries official Brazilian sources, but the scope remains ambiguous—e.g., whether it returns vehicle transfer status, registration details, or something else. While it distinguishes from generic sibling tools by its domain, it lacks a sharp verb-object definition.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusion criteria or context where this tool is preferable. It only notes that payment is required and that it accesses official data, which is contextual but not usage direction.

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 annotations, it discloses key behaviors: invoke works even when the MCP is not installed, is one-off, and does not bloat the toolkit. It also explains fallback links for missing credentials or empty wallets, and states that writes require workspace owner/admin. The description does not contradict the annotations; readOnlyHint=false is consistent with the described install/subscribe/invoke behavior.

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 densely informative, using arrows, capitalization, and KEY to structure the core flow. Its run-on style and rapid topic shifts (marketplace, invoke behavior, install policy, prompt library) make it slightly harder to scan, but nearly every sentence adds necessary context for a complex 14-action tool.

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 no output schema and only generic annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the full discovery→profile→invoke lifecycle, the install-vs-invoke distinction, auth/wallet fallbacks, permissions, installed flag behavior, and the prompt-library subdomain with return-link semantics. A few sub-actions like subscribe/resume and request_mcp payloads are only lightly covered, but the overall picture is strong.

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 23 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries a heavy burden. It does explain the action enum semantically and clarifies tool_id's role ('so you pick the right tool_id → invoke RUNS that tool'), and mentions prompt_vars implicitly via '{{variables}} filled.' However, many parameters such as limit, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, report_context, and request_details receive no semantic guidance, leaving important 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 opens with a clear role: 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It then enumerates the action-specific verbs (search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, etc.), giving a specific verb+resource mapping despite the noun name. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are narrower utilities like authenticate, connect, and show_version.

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 lays out the core flow: action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns one MCP's full profile → invoke RUNS that tool. It gives decision rules such as 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT,' plus permission requirements for writes. This is strong when-to-use and 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 already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that the conversation array is needed 'for reproduction,' which is a functional expectation not present in annotations. However, it does not disclose what happens after submission (e.g., response format, rate limits, 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 two short sentences. The first identifies the purpose, and the second provides the key parameter guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 the most important reproduction-related parameter. It lacks clarity on 'context' and the expected return behavior, but annotations supply safety metadata and the tool complexity is low.

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 successfully clarifies 'message' as the bug/feature/feedback text and 'conversation' as recent messages for reproduction. However, the 'context' parameter is not explained at all, leaving a semantic 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 uses the specific verb 'Report' and names concrete resources: 'a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) and leaves no ambiguity about its 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?

It provides clear situational context: use this when reporting a bug, missing feature, or providing feedback. It also instructs to include the conversation array for reproduction, which guides invocation. It does not explicitly name excluded scenarios, but the context is specific enough.

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 provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which thoroughly cover the behavioral safety profile. The description adds minimal extra behavior context (just that it shows versions), but that is sufficient given the simple nature of the tool. There is 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 a single, clear sentence that conveys the full purpose. There is no fluff or redundant information. It is appropriately front-loaded 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 no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description is complete enough. An agent can confidently invoke it to fetch version info. A minor gap is not stating the exact format of the output, but this is a trivial detail for such a 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). The description doesn't need to explain parameters because there are none. The description adds meaning by specifying what the tool reports (platform and adapter versions), which is beyond the schema's empty definition.

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: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It uses a specific verb ('Show') and specifies the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on version information, which is unique among the listed 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 clear context for when to use this tool: when an agent needs to know the current versions of the MCP platform and adapter. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but given the tool's simple, self-contained nature, this is adequate. It is implied that this is the go-to tool for version checks.

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 useful context by specifying exactly what state dimensions are returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the generic read-only annotation and helps the agent anticipate the response content.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then lists the key output components. Every element adds value with no redundancy or 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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential return categories. It does not detail the exact response structure or data types, but it provides sufficient context for an agent to know what information is available and when to invoke the 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, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the output rather than inputs. No parameter explanations are needed, and the description fully satisfies the semantic burden for a parameterless tool.

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 specifies the action ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), with detailed enumeration of what is included: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and show_version, all of which serve 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 when to use this tool (when needing toolkit state information) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it complements or differs from alternatives like show_version. Usage context is clear but no exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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