ECRVSP Processos: Licenciamento

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

Without output schema and with minimal annotations, the description discloses the behavioral flow: a browser login, token copy, and option to persist via config or use session-only. It enriches the idempotentHint=true annotation by implying calling with no args just returns a link without side effects. It could have explicitly mentioned what the response looks like, but it gives sufficient context beyond the annotations without any 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 compact, with two sentences containing all necessary information and no fluff. It is front-loaded with the purpose and audience. Minor deduction for being slightly run-on and heavily punctuated, which could be split for readability, but overall it is appropriately sized.

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, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description is thorough. It covers the permanent vs. session-based approaches, the role of the token, and the no-arg fallback. It doesn't detail return values, but with no output schema expected, this is acceptable for the tool's 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 schema only lists a 'token' string with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining the token's purpose ('call with { token: "<jwt>" }') and the no-arg behavior ('with no args to get the link'). It goes beyond the schema by explaining when to omit the parameter and the meaning of the JWT.

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: 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.): log in in the browser, copy the access token.' It uses a specific verb+resource ('authenticate', 'log in') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' and 'show_version' by detailing the exact authentication flow. The description leaves no doubt about what the tool does and for whom it is intended.

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 guidance on how to use the tool: 'Best: add it to this server's config as a header ... for a permanent, non-expiring connection. Or paste it here for a session-only login.' It differentiates between the two methods and explains when to use each. It also gives precise invocation instructions ('call with { token: "<jwt>" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link').

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 read-only and idempotent nature. The description adds concrete behavioral details: what it returns in different states (authenticated:true, empty pending[], connect_url). This fully discloses expected outcomes without misleading.

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 concise sentences, each providing essential information without redundancy. 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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains return values and conditional behavior. It covers all necessary context for a simple connection-status check tool, making it 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing to explain. The description does not need to add parameter meaning; the baseline of 3 is appropriate since no parameter details 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: returning connection status and URLs. It explains behavior under different conditions (all providers connected vs. missing credentials), which accurately conveys the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings 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 scenario-based usage context (when providers are connected vs. missing credentials) but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools. It implies when to use this tool (to check connection status) but could be more explicit about not using it for actions like authentication or version checking.

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 valuable context beyond these: it clarifies the hosted nature (no platform credentials needed), the payment model (prepaid credit per query), the official source of data (same as accessible to citizens, not confidential), and legal compliance (LGPD). This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's operational and legal behavior without contradicting 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 sentence that delivers multiple key points: the tool's domain, official source, hosting, payment, and legal framework. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and packs substantive information without redundancy. Every clause earns its place, making it highly concise and efficiently 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 tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and only basic annotations. The description provides useful operational context (payment, official sources, LGPD) but leaves critical gaps: it does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a list of processes, status, details), how the parameters map to a query (e.g., which combinations are valid), or how authentication credentials are used. Given the complexity, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without further inference, warranting a low score.

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 lists eight parameters (a3, a3_pin, login_cpf, login_senha, cpf, cnpj, placa, renavam) with no descriptions. The description does not explain any parameter's purpose, format, or relationship to the query. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to guess meanings. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory for Brazilian identifiers, but the authentication parameters (a3, a3_pin) are entirely cryptic. 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 performs a consultation (consulta) of licensing processes (processos de licenciamento) from an official source. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace by specifying the exact domain (ECRVSP licensing) and action (query). The purpose is specific and 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?

The description provides contextual usage information: it mentions the query is against official Brazilian sources, requires prepaid credits, and is subject to LGPD data control responsibilities. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, earning a mid-range score.

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?

Even with annotations, the description adds important behavior: invoke runs tools without installing them, requires owner/admin for writes, returns connect links on missing credentials, and returns checkout/top-up links for unpaid tools. No contradiction with annotations exists; readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false are consistent with the described write and one-off install 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 front-loaded with the core flow and key distinction between invoke and install, and most sentences add operational value. It is long and dense, but for a 14-action tool with 23 parameters, the compact flow-oriented structure is justified; it could be improved with explicit bullets or separate handling of billing actions.

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?

Considering the lack of output schema and the complexity, the description covers discovery, execution, installation, billing, permissions, prompt library, and auth/payment edge cases. It misses a few action details (resume, immediate, exact return structures) but is largely complete enough for an agent to use the tool safely.

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 burden for 23 parameters. It explains the main action values and the search/describe/invoke/install/prompt flows, but leaves several parameters undocumented (immediate, tier_slug, resume, cancel_reason/comment, report_context, request_details, and the prompt metadata fields). Thus it adds meaningful semantics for core parameters but is not comprehensive enough for the full 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 defines marketplace as the official mcp.ai catalog and execution layer, with a specific core flow (search -> describe -> invoke) and a secondary prompt library. It is not a tautology and distinguishes this tool from sibling support tools by positioning it as the in-platform discovery and run surface.

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 guidance: prefer invoke for one-off use, use install only when an MCP should become permanent, use list_tools for currently callable tools, and use request_mcp when nothing fits. It also explains when invoke returns connect/checkout links and that writes require owner/admin, so the agent knows when an operation can proceed or needs user action.

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 mentions including the conversation array for reproduction, which is a useful behavioral hint beyond the schema. However, it doesn't disclose what happens after submission (e.g., no response details), and annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds some value but not rich behavioral context; 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The first sentence defines the purpose, the second adds a key usage instruction. No fluff, but the second sentence could be more specific about the conversation parameter format; still, it's 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?

The tool is straightforward with three simple parameters and no output schema. However, it lacks guidance on the expected format of 'conversation' (though it's a string with default '[]'), and it doesn't specify what happens after submission. Given the tool's simplicity, a 3 is adequate; it's complete enough for basic usage but lacks detail on potential edge cases.

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 references the 'conversation' parameter specifically by name and explains its purpose ('for reproduction'). It also mentions 'message' implicitly via 'Report a bug... send feedback'. However, it doesn't explain 'context' or clarify the format of 'conversation' beyond the default. Since the description partially compensates but not fully, a 3 is justified.

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 a bug, missing feature, or send feedback. It identifies the primary action ('report') and the resource (bug/feedback), and it differentiates from siblings by being the designated feedback channel. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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: use this tool when you encounter a bug, missing feature, or have feedback. It provides a specific instruction to include the conversation array for reproduction, which gives context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but given the sibling list (authenticate, connect, etc.), the context is clear enough; a 4 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and side effects. The description adds that it provides platform and adapter versions, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not mention that it returns version strings, but with an idempotent read operation, that is acceptable.

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 sentence, uses concise language, and places the verb and resource up front. There is no extraneous information, making it ideal for an agent to quickly 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?

Given the simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema, clear purpose), the description is sufficient. It doesn't specify the exact format of the output, but the tool is trivial enough that this is not a significant gap. It fully captures the tool's role and behavior.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none. This baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter 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 states the tool's purpose: to show current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('MCP platform and adapter versions'), which is clear and unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, the siblings are mostly unrelated (e.g., authenticate, connect, marketplace), so differentiation is less critical.

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 a simple informational use case, and the zero parameters make it straightforward. There is no need to exclude alternatives since siblings are unrelated. The context of when to use it (to check versions) is clear, though it could benefit from an explicit statement like 'Use when you need to verify the environment version'.

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 valuable detail about the content of the return value (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, counts), 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 sentence that immediately states the action and lists the key output components without any fluff. Information is front-loaded and every word is informative.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns (state, connections, accounts, catalog counts). It gives sufficient details for an agent to know what to expect, and there are no missing aspects.

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 is empty. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description doesn't need to explain any params and doesn't add any.

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 and enumerates exactly what that includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This is specific and distinct from siblings like show_version 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 usage (when you need an overview of MCPs and connections) but does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it. There is no guidance on choosing this over other tools, though the purpose is self-evident.

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