ECRVSP Processos: Andamento

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

It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: how the token is consumed, that calling with no arguments returns the login link, and that config-based auth is non-expiring while token login is session-only. No contradiction with the provided 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 somewhat dense but still focused and front-loaded with the core login flow. Every sentence adds value: config-based permanent auth, session-only token input, and no-arg link generation.

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-optional-parameter auth tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to decide how to call it. The main missing detail is what response or errors the agent should expect after a token is submitted.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it clarifies token semantics well by calling it a pasted JWT/access token and marking it optional. It could be even stronger by explicitly describing failure or validation behavior, but the core meaning is clear.

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 the authentication entry point by explaining the browser login flow, access-token collection, and link generation. It gives specific actions and outcomes rather than restating the tool name.

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 which path: add the token to config for a permanent connection, call with a pasted token for session-only authentication, or call with no args to get the login link. This is concrete, actionable 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?

The annotations already declare the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds transparent details about the response in different scenarios (e.g., authenticated:true vs connect_url), which goes beyond the annotations to clarify expected 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 concise, using two sentences to convey the core purpose and the two main outcomes. There is no redundancy or irrelevant information, making it efficient 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?

The description covers the all-connected and missing-credentials cases well, but it does not explicitly describe partial connection scenarios (e.g., some providers connected, some pending). This omission leaves a minor gap in completeness, but the overall context is sufficient for a simple status-checking 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 no parameters, and the description does not need to explain any input semantics. The absence of parameters is clear from the schema, and the description adds no unnecessary detail, so there is nothing to improve.

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 connection status and URLs, with specific cases for all-connected and missing-credentials scenarios. It is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or show_version, making its purpose 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?

While the description implies usage for checking connection status, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any alternative tools. The conditional cases describe output behavior rather than guiding when to invoke the 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context about external official sources, non-confidential data, LGPD responsibility, and pay-per-query behavior. However, it does not disclose operational details such as response format, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 block of four sentences. It front-loads the purpose, but then includes payment and LGPD disclaimers that could be moved to a separate note. It is not overly long but contains extraneous compliance language.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe what data is returned, how to interpret the query, or parameter semantics. Some context about the data source and legal aspects is present, but core functional details are missing.

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 coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description does not explain any of the six parameters (a3, a3_pin, login_cpf, login_senha, numero, ano); a3 and a3_pin are especially obscure. There is no compensation for the missing schema metadata.

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 'consulta em fonte oficial' (consult in official source) and 'consulta informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros', making clear it queries official Brazilian sources for process progress. The resource is 'ECRVSP processos andamento', which is specific and distinguishes it from the generic sibling tools like authenticate 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 provides context about payment (prepaid credit) and the lack of platform credentials, but does not state when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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?

Despite annotations declaring readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, the description adds substantial behavioral depth: invoke 'runs the tool pontualmente (one-off), without adding the MCP to the toolkit and without bloating the tool list'; auth requirements ('Writes... require workspace owner/admin'); edge-case link-return behavior for credentials or empty wallets; and 'opens without login' for published prompts. 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?

Every sentence earns its place — there is no fluff — but it is a ~330-word wall of text. The two subsystems (MCP execution vs prompt library) and the write-permission requirements would benefit from sectioning or bullets. Length is justified by the tool's 14-action complexity, but front-loading is only partially achieved; the prompt-library section trails at the end.

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 14 actions, 23 params, minimal annotations, and no output schema, this description is remarkably complete: core flow, install-vs-invoke distinction, credential/paid edge cases with retry instructions, owner/admin authorization, installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace flags, and the fully separate prompt-library subsystem. The dual-subsystem scope is explained end-to-end with no meaningful omissions.

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 coverage, the burden falls on the description, and it compensates well for the central parameter: it walks through nearly every action enum value (search, describe, install, uninstall, subscribe, cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, list_tools, invoke, search_prompts, get_prompt, publish_prompt). It also adds meaning to tool_id ('pick the right tool_id') and prompt_vars ('{{variables}} filled'). Only the 'resume' action and most of the remaining 22 params (limit, conversation, cancel_reason, prompt_targets, etc.) are left unexplained — a gap, but the critical action param is thoroughly 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?

Clear, specific verb+resource: 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It immediately distinguishes itself from siblings (authenticate, connect, toolkit_info) by staking out the entire catalog-and-execution domain, and explicitly separates its two subsystems (MCP execution vs prompt library).

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?

Excellent when-to-use guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT,' the canonical flow (search → describe → invoke), and explicit alternatives — 'use search_calls...' style exclusions appear as 'prefer invoke' vs install, plus retry instructions after connect/checkout links, and request_mcp 'when nothing fits.' This is the strongest dimension.

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=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description does not add much beyond the schema. It implies the tool sends a report, but does not discuss side effects like rate limits or persistence. Given no contradictions, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description provides some context but lacks depth.

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 purpose and then the key usage hint. Every word earns its place, no wasted text.

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, 3 parameters with one required, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main use. It lacks detail on the 'context' parameter and potential response behavior, but for a feedback tool, it is reasonably 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 carries the burden. It explains that 'message' is for the report content and 'conversation' is for reproduction data, but does not clarify 'context'. This is minimal but positive, so a baseline of 3 is fair.

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, with a mention of including conversation data for reproduction. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on user feedback, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings.

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 guidance on when to use the tool (reporting bugs, missing features, feedback) and what to include (conversation array with recent messages). It does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives, but the context is clear.

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, which cover the tool's non-mutating behavior. The description's word 'Show' aligns with these annotations but adds no extra context (e.g., side effects or output details). Since annotations carry the transparency burden, a score of 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, concise sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words or complexity. It is well-structured 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?

The description provides complete information for a simple read-only tool: it states what is shown (current MCP platform and adapter versions). There is no output schema to elaborate, and no additional context is needed for this straightforward operation.

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 no parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. According to the rubric, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without parameter-specific description. There is nothing additional to explain, so the score remains at baseline.

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: showing the current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and identifies the resource (versions), which is unambiguous and distinct 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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is a simple read-only operation, but the description lacks any mention of context, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools, leaving usage somewhat implicit.

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 it as read-only and idempotent, and the description reinforces this by framing it as a state inspection tool. It adds specific details about the content of the state, going beyond 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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently enumerates what is returned. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous content.

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 simple tool with no parameters and rich annotations, the description fully explains the tool's output (state components) without needing an output schema. It is sufficient for an agent to select and use this tool 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?

With zero parameters, the schema is empty and the description needs no parameter explanation. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter info, keeping the focus on the tool's purpose.

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 toolkit state, specifying the exact components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate or marketplace, 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 usage for checking state but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives. No when-not advice or mention of sibling tools is provided.

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