ECRVSP Documentos: Transferência de Proprietário

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that the token is a JWT, that using it results in a session-only login, and that calling with no args returns a link. It does not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true) and clarifies the login 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 informative but slightly verbose, starting with an odd preface ('MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)') and weaving a long sentence. However, it efficiently packs key usage details and is structured around the two login pathways.

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 authentication tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential scenarios: obtaining a link, token-based login, and permanent configuration. It could mention what happens post-authentication (e.g., success response), but it is adequate given the tool's 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'token' parameter: it expects a JWT token pasted by the user, and that omitting it will retrieve a login link. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema 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: to authenticate with the MCP server by either providing a JWT token or getting a login link. It explicitly mentions the browser login flow and the two invocation modes, distinguishing it from any sibling tools which do not overlap.

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 explicit usage guidance: for permanent connections, add the token to config; for session-only, call with the token; to obtain the link, call with no args. It clearly delineates when to use each mode and even advises the best approach ('Best: add it to this server's config').

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, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds detail about the two output states (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs. connect_url per install), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not cover all possible scenarios (e.g., partial connectivity) or describe the structure of the returned data in detail, so it only partially enriches the behavioral picture.

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 each sentence adds meaningful information. It avoids redundancy and fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (0 params, safe annotations), the description covers the main behavioral outcomes. It explains what happens when all providers are connected and when credentials are missing, but it does not explicitly address partial connection states. For a basic status checker, this is mostly complete, though a bit more detail on the 'connect_url' and 'pending' array would enhance completeness.

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% (no props). The description correctly avoids parameter details. Per the baseline rule for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description is not penalized for omitting parameter info.

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 is specific about the verb (returns) and the resource (connection status and URLs), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate by focusing on status checking. The two conditional outcomes add further specificity.

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 context about when certain outputs occur (all providers connected vs. missing credentials) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It implies usage for checking connection status, but lacks explicit guidance such as 'Use this before authenticate' or 'See authenticate for establishing 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?

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which already indicate a safe read operation. The description adds context: 'não é dado sigiloso' and 'consulta informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros (a mesma disponível ao cidadão).' It also mentions payment with prepaid credit, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not describe what happens on failure, rate limits, or data handling beyond LGPD. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 paragraph, concise, and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes relevant context about payment, data source, and LGPD. However, it could be more structured, but it is not overly verbose. It earns a 4 for being 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's complexity (26 parameters, 18 required, no output schema, no parameter descriptions), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the required parameters, the expected input format, or the return value. The description only provides high-level context about the consultation and legal aspects. For a tool with such a large schema, the description should provide more guidance on how to fill the parameters and what to expect.

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%, and there are 26 parameters, 18 required. The description does not explain any parameter semantics. It only mentions 'consulta' but does not describe what each parameter means or how they relate. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent to guess parameter meanings. This 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: 'ECRVSP Documentos: Transferência de Proprietário, consulta em fonte oficial.' It specifies the resource (transfer of ownership documents) and the action (consultation). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'consulta em fonte oficial' and 'Hospedado pela plataforma, sem credenciais da plataforma, pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other document consultation tools, but the specific domain (transfer of owner) is clear.

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 context on when to use: 'consulta em fonte oficial' and 'pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago' indicates it's a paid consultation. It also mentions 'O cliente é o controlador dos dados e responde pela finalidade legítima (LGPD).' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The usage is implied but not fully 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?

Discloses substantial behavior beyond annotations: writes require workspace owner/admin, invoke runs one-off without bloating the tool list, install makes tools appear natively in future sessions, invoke returns connect/checkout links on auth/payment failure, and publish_prompt links open without login. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent; 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?

The description is long (~400 words) but densely informative with a clear arc: definition → core flow → KEY invoke insight → install vs invoke contrast → secondary actions → prompt library. It is front-loaded with the most decision-critical information. Every sentence earns its place given the tool's 14-action surface, though tighter formatting (e.g., bullet separation of the prompt library) could improve scannability.

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?

Despite high complexity (14 actions, 23 params), minimal annotations, and no output schema, the description covers discovery, inspection, one-off execution, persistence semantics, per-MCP billing, permission requirements, auth/payment exceptional flows, and the entire prompt library sub-domain. It even notes how search/describe flag installation status and how the shareable prompt link behaves. Exceptionally complete for such a broad 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden. It meaningfully explains the critical action enum (all 14 values mapped to their roles) and connects the core params: query/mcp_id feed search, tool_id is 'picked' from describe, arguments are passed to invoke, prompt_vars fill {{variables}}. However, roughly 17 of 23 params (cancel_reason, prompt_targets, conversation, immediate, tier_slug, etc.) receive no semantic explanation, which is a notable gap at this complexity level.

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 the mcp.ai marketplace catalog and execution engine, with a specific core flow (search → describe → invoke). It distinguishes each action's resource (MCPs, tools, prompts) and differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming overlaps like report_bug and the toolkit-related list_tools 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', 'request_mcp asks us to build a NEW MCP when nothing fits', and 'list_tools lists what is callable right now'. It even explains the retry flow when connect/checkout links are returned. This is textbook usage guidance with alternatives.

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 non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, but the description adds little beyond that. It mentions including conversation for reproduction but does not disclose potential side effects or error handling.

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 and to the point, but its vagueness and the parameter mismatch reduce clarity. It is not verbose, but the brevity sacrifices necessary detail.

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 schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does with the provided data, what the response will be, or how the parameters interact, leaving significant gaps for the 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?

The description only references the 'conversation' parameter, and incorrectly calls it an 'array' while the schema defines it as a string. It fails to explain the purpose of 'message' (the only required parameter) or 'context', leaving users guessing.

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 bugs, missing features, or sending feedback, which distinguishes it from other tools. However, it could be more specific about what constitutes a 'bug' or '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 provides an instruction to include the conversation array for reproduction but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it clarify the intended context (e.g., when a user reports an issue).

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 as read-only (readOnlyHint=true), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), which fully covers its behavioral safety profile. The description adds the specific detail that it returns platform and adapter versions, which is sufficient and 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 a single, clean sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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, straightforward read operation), the description is complete. Combined with the rich annotations, an agent has all necessary information to invoke this tool correctly. There is no missing context that would affect usage.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description correctly avoids adding irrelevant parameter information. No additional semantics are needed.

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 action ('Show') and the specific resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and report_bug, so there is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

While there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, the tool's purpose is self-evident and no sibling tool serves a similar function. The context makes it clear this is the go-to for version information, but it lacks an explicit 'use when' statement.

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 read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful detail about what state includes. It does not contradict annotations and adds context about the tool's output contents, going beyond what annotations provide.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists the returned elements without redundancy. Every word 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?

For a simple read-only tool with no parameters, good annotations, and a clear description of what it returns, the description fully covers the necessary context. No output schema is present, but the description enumerates the return contents sufficiently.

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 per the rubric. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively 100% with none.

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, specifying exact components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like connect or 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?

The description implies usage for inspecting toolkit state, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives like show_version, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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