ECRVSP Restrições: Bloqueios Judiciais RENAJUD

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

The description explains the behavior of the tool beyond the annotations. For example, it clarifies the auth flow, discusses sessions versus permanent tokens, and notes that a token is non-expiring when configured via the header. This adds value on top of the idempotentHint annotation, indicating a side-effect-free operation.

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 dense but efficient, using a colon and paragraph break to separate the permanent and session-based flows. While it's slightly long, every clause provides necessary instruction, earning a high score for conciseness given the complexity.

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 (1 optional param, no output schema, no nested objects) and the provided annotations, the description covers the essential context: how to authenticate, what to do with the token, and the two modes of operation. It's complete for an authentication tool, though it could have elaborated on what the login link looks like or expected response, but the lack of an output schema makes this less critical.

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 itself only lists a 'token' string with no description, and there's 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates for this by explaining that the token is an optional JWT to paste for session-only login and clarifies the no-argument call. This brings the score up to a baseline 3, as the description makes the parameter's usage clear despite the schema's lack of detail.

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: authenticating MCP.AI for IDE agents by logging in via browser and copying an access token. It specifies the authentication methods, including permanent configuration via header or session-only token, and covers the no-arg call. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'connect' 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 explicitly tells when to use this tool, providing step-by-step instructions for both a permanent and session-only login. It also clarifies the behavior with and without arguments, leaving no ambiguity about the recommended setup. While it doesn't name alternatives, the guidance is explicit and actionable.

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 provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the two distinct return states (all providers connected vs. missing credentials) and specifies what URLs are returned. This goes 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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and then clarify behavior. No wasted words. Every sentence adds information.

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 status tool, the description fully explains the output states and URL behavior, which is sufficient. No output schema exists, but the description provides the necessary return details. Combined with strong annotations, this is 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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter info since none exist. It appropriately focuses on the return behavior 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's function: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It specifies the resource (connection status) and the action (returns), and distinguishes it from siblings by indicating it returns URLs and authentication state, which is not covered by siblings like 'authenticate'.

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 connection status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'authenticate' or mention exclusions. However, the clear purpose makes the context obvious, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Description discloses that it's a read-only consultation (supports readOnlyHint), does not involve sensitive data ('não é dado sigiloso'), and clarifies the LGPD responsibility of the client as data controller. It also mentions the payment model and that it's hosted by the platform. 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?

Description is concise but informative, covering purpose, usage, and context in a few sentences. It's not overly verbose. However, it could be more structured, but it's acceptable.

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 gives context about the official source, payment, and LGPD, but lacks details on when to use vs siblings, and does not explain the parameters. Since there are 5 required params, more context would be helpful. It also doesn't mention output format or what information is returned.

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 has 5 required parameters but no descriptions. The description mentions credentials (a3, a3_pin, login_cpf, login_senha) and chassi (likely the vehicle chassis), but does not explicitly explain each parameter's purpose or format. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially covers the parameters but not fully. It's ambiguous what a3 and a3_pin are exactly.

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 does: it consults judicial blocking restrictions from RENAJUD via an official source. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'marketplace', which are general platform functions. The name and description align, and it specifies the resource (RENAJUD restrictions) and the action (consult).

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 this tool: for querying RENAJUD judicial blocking information from official Brazilian sources encoded in ECRVSP. It mentions payment via prepaid credits and that no platform credentials are needed (though user credentials are required in the schema). It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, but the purpose is clear enough to differentiate.

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 provide only basic flags, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: invoke runs uninstalled MCPs one-off without adding them to the toolkit, returns connect links for auth and checkout links for payment, and requires workspace owner/admin for writes. It also explains installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace flags and the prompt-library publishing behavior. No contradictions 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 long but information-dense and well-organized: it starts with the core identity, then walks through the primary flow, key invoke behavior, install-vs-invoke tradeoffs, billing, and the prompt library. Every section adds distinct value, though it could be slightly more scannable with clearer separation or bullet points.

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, 23 parameters, and lack of an output schema, the description covers the main workflow, edge cases like auth/payment links, permission requirements, and the secondary prompt-library feature. It leaves some gaps around exact arguments JSON format, the resume action, and response shapes, but overall it provides strong contextual grounding for an 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?

With 23 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries a heavy burden for explaining parameters. It explains the action enum and high-level roles of tool_id and arguments, but many parameters such as limit, query, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, prompt_* fields, and request_* fields are not meaningfully described. The value added is real but incomplete relative to the parameter set.

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 official mcp.ai marketplace and explains that it covers both discovery and execution of MCPs/tools, including capability requests like 'find an MCP that does X'. It names the core actions (search, describe, invoke, install, etc.) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect by describing a specific marketplace flow.

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 when to use each action, including the core flow of search → describe → invoke, when to prefer invoke over install, and when install is appropriate for making an MCP permanent. It also covers list_tools, subscribe/cancel, request_mcp, and prompt-library actions, with clear alternatives and exclusions.

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, idempotentHint:true, and destructiveHint:false, establishing the behavioral baseline. The description adds guidance to include a conversation array for reproduction, supplying a small extra behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose what happens after reporting, whether confirmation is returned, or any side effects 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 sentence with no fluff, front-loading the core purpose and then adding the key instruction about the conversation array. Every word earns its place, and the structure is immediately scannable.

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 relatively simple tool with three flat parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It covers the tool's goal and highlights the important reproduction detail (conversation array). It does not describe the response behavior or error cases, but these are less critical given the low complexity and clear intent of a user-facing bug report mechanism.

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 does explain the 'conversation' parameter as the array for reproduction, but it never explicitly defines 'message' (the required parameter) or 'context'. The description partially bridges the schema gap but leaves notable ambiguities for two of the three parameters.

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 with specific verbs and targets: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools such as authenticate, show_version, or marketplace, which have 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 explicitly enumerates the applicable scenarios (bug, missing feature, feedback) and provides guidance to include the conversation array for reproduction. Though no explicit alternatives or exclusion criteria are stated, the use cases are clear and no sibling tool could reasonably be mistaken for this one.

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 the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral details beyond restating the purpose, so it relies on annotations for transparency.

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 with no fluff, front-loaded with the action.

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 simple, no params, no output schema. The description adequately conveys that it returns version info, enough for an agent to know what to expect. It could specify output format, but not necessary for this basic 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 schema coverage is 100% (empty). Per rubric, baseline for 0 params is 4, and description doesn't need to add param semantics.

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 with a specific verb ('show') and resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect. It 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 implies usage (when you need version info) but does not explicitly mention when to use it against alternatives or any exclusions. Since the tool is simple and no sibling serves the same purpose, the lack of explicit guidance is acceptable, but it falls short of explicit guidelines.

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 fully discloses what the tool returns, and the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, not destructive) are consistent with the description. No hidden side effects or additional behaviors are implied, ensuring transparency.

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 lists all key information. There is no unnecessary wording or redundancy, making it 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?

Without parameters and without a specified output schema, the description provides complete context about what the tool does and what it returns. It covers all necessary aspects for a simple info-gathering 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 schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it doesn't. Given the trivial nature, this is adequate, though a perfect score might be reserved for tools with parameters that are thoroughly explained.

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 the current toolkit state, including installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools which focus on authentication, connection, version, etc.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, its role as an info/status tool is evident from the content. Sibling tools serve different purposes (authenticate, connect, report_bug, etc.), so usage is clear enough, though not explicitly stated.

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