ECRVSP Restrições: Bloqueios Ativos DETRAN

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

Annotations already declare it is not read-only, is idempotent, and is not destructive. The description adds context about the permanent vs. session behavior and the option to modify server config, but it does not disclose what happens on invalid tokens or any validation side effects. Overall, it adds some value beyond annotations without 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 a single paragraph but effectively front-loads the purpose and explains both usage paths without unnecessary fluff. It is slightly verbose but each sentence conveys essential information, earning a 4.

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 this simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the two authentication modes, the token usage, the permanent-config recommendation, and the no-args case. It is comprehensive for the tool's complexity, leaving no obvious gaps for an agent to select and 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 single parameter 'token' is optional and the description explains its role as a JWT for session-only login, and also clarifies the no-args behavior to obtain a link. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare 'string' type.

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 the MCP.AI server for IDE agents. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing solely on authentication, with explicit modes for permanent or session-based login.

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 explicit usage instructions: either configure a header for a permanent connection or pass a token for a session-only login, and mentions calling with no args to get a link. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this one, though no siblings are relevant for auth.

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, and the description adds meaningful state-dependent behavior: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url when credentials are missing. There is no contradiction with 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 two concise sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds useful behavioral detail without unnecessary 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 zero-parameter tool with annotations but no output schema, the description covers the primary return states and is mostly complete. It could slightly improve by explaining partial-connectivity behavior or the shape of pending[], but is otherwise sufficient.

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 parameter semantics are not applicable; the baseline for zero params is 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter information since the input schema is empty.

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, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate by focusing on status/connectivity rather than performing an authentication 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?

The description provides conditional output expectations (all connected vs missing credentials) that imply when this tool is useful, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives or exclude other tools. No explicit usage guidance 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?

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it clarifies payment model (prepaid credits), that it uses official sources, and LGPD responsibilities. It does not contradict the readOnly/idempotent annotations and effectively supplements them with cost and compliance information.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes necessary context (official source, payment, legal) without extraneous detail. Each sentence adds value, though the legal note could be shortened without loss.

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 omits critical details: it does not explain what the tool returns (only implies restrictions), does not clarify the parameter semantics, and gives no information about error cases or required preconditions. Given the tool's five required parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient for confident invocation.

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 fails to explain any of the five parameters (a3, login_cpf, login_senha, etc.). It only hints at the need for user credentials via 'sem credenciais da plataforma', but does not elaborate on what each parameter means or how they map to the official source. With no schema descriptions, this leaves the agent 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 identifies the tool as consulting active DETRAN restrictions from an official source, with a specific verb ('consulta') and resource ('Restrições / Bloqueios Ativos DETRAN'). It distinguishes itself from generic siblings like authenticate or show_version, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 context that it queries official Brazilian sources and mentions prepaid credit but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over others or any exclusions. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., having a valid vehicle chassis) or when not to use it.

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?

Goes well beyond the spare annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true). Discloses permission requirements ('Writes ... require workspace owner/admin'), the key one-off invoke behavior with no toolkit bloat, credential/payment resolution flows (connect link, checkout/top-up link with retry), and the login-free share link 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 carries substantive information, but the ~280-word single-paragraph wall of text with inline arrows and parentheticals is difficult to scan for a 14-action dispatcher. The density is justified by the tool's breadth, but the lack of structural breaks hurts usability.

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 high-complexity tool with no output schema, coverage is strong: the search→describe→invoke flow, invoke-vs-install semantics, permission model, auth/payment edge cases, installed flags, and the entire prompt library are addressed. Gaps include the resume action, return-value/result shapes, and fine-grained parameter semantics, but the core decision paths are 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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 23 parameters, the description must compensate — and it largely does for the critical ones: it explains 13 of 14 action enum values, tool_id selection, mcp_id profiling, and prompt_vars/prompt_slug behavior. However, notable gaps remain: the arguments JSON format for invoke, immediate, tier_slug, the resume action, and several prompt_*/request_* params are undocumented.

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 what the tool is: 'the official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It names the specific core flow (search → describe → invoke), scopes its coverage to capability requests, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning it as the catalog/execution layer rather than a specific MCP like ecrvsp_restricoes_detran_consultar or an auth tool like authenticate/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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit.' It also names the fallback alternative ('request_mcp asks us to build a NEW MCP when nothing fits'), clarifies list_tools as the current-callability check, and separates the prompt library as 'ready-made prompt TEXT rather than MCPs.'

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 readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by instructing to include conversation for reproduction, implying the tool uses this data to replicate the issue. This adds value 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and the usage hint is concise. There is no filler or repetition; every word earns its place.

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 no output schema and multiple parameters, the description should cover more. It explains purpose and one parameter but omits the purpose of the other two parameters and any indication of what the tool returns or does after reporting. This leaves the agent with significant ambiguity about execution.

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 only clarifies the 'conversation' parameter (says to include recent messages) but leaves 'message' and 'context' unexplained. The required 'message' parameter is not described at all, and 'context' is ignored. This is insufficient for a low-coverage scenario.

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: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This is a specific verb (report/send) and resource (bug, feature, feedback), and it is clearly distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, show_version, or marketplace, which serve entirely different functions.

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 a practical usage hint ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'), which tells the agent what to include for effective use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use this tool, though sibling tools are unrelated, so this is not a major gap.

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, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds that it shows versions but doesn't disclose additional behavioral details like whether network calls are made or if the output format is stable. 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 sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and directly states the purpose, making it perfectly sized for a parameterless utility 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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It mentions both platform and adapter versions, which is all the user needs to know. A slightly richer description could mention the exact format, but it's not critical here.

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% (vacuously, since there are no properties). The description adds meaning by specifying exactly what is shown (platform and adapter versions), which is necessary since the schema is empty and there's no other documentation.

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 that the tool shows the current MCP platform and adapter versions, using a specific verb ('Show') and a concrete resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It is distinguishable from siblings like 'authenticate' and 'connect', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 that this tool is for retrieving version information, which is useful in contexts where a user needs to know the environment. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds value by specifying exactly what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations. 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 a single sentence that efficiently lists all the information returned. No wasted words, front-loaded with the purpose, and every element 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 zero-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does and what it returns. It could potentially mention that it's a diagnostic tool, but the current description is sufficient for 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the return value instead.

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 specific elements: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings 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 a read-only informational tool for checking toolkit state, which is clear from the context. It doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, but the sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.) are clearly different actions, so the usage context is reasonably clear.

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