Enriquecimento de Lead

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

Adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that no args returns the login link, while a token enables a session-only login, and suggests a permanent config approach. Does not disclose token replacement or error behavior, but idempotentHint and lack of destructiveHint provide safety context. 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?

The description is moderately sized and well-structured: it states the purpose, gives a best practice, then offers an alternative. Each sentence adds value, though it could be tightened slightly without losing 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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation modes and purpose well. It implies the return value ('get the link') but does not specify response format or error scenarios. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to use 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 schema provides no description for 'token' (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining it as a JWT for session login and specifying that omitting it returns the login link. This gives clear meaning beyond the bare 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 states the tool's purpose: authenticating to MCP.AI by either returning a login link (when called with no args) or accepting a JWT token for session login. It is specific about the resource and action, though it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'connect' tool.

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 usage modes: 'Best: add it to this server's config as a header... Or paste it here for a session-only login' and clarifies when to call with no args versus with a token. It does not mention tool-level alternatives, but the guidance is clear 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 already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating a safe, non-destructive read. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by specifying exact return values for different states (authenticated:true with empty pending[], or connect_url) beyond what annotations provide. It does not contradict 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 sentences long, front-loaded with the primary function, and the second sentence adds conditional behavior. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy or fluff.

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 main success and failure states, but it only addresses 'all connected' vs. 'credentials missing,' leaving partial connection states ambiguous. Despite this, with no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete for a simple read-only 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 input schema defines zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description correctly says nothing about parameters, and nothing more is needed. It does not attempt to add irrelevant parameter 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 uses the specific verb 'returns' and clearly identifies the resource ('connection status and URLs'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' which initiates connections. The two-state behavior further clarifies the tool's purpose.

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 clarifies when to use the tool by showing what it returns in different connection states (all connected vs. missing credentials), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when NOT to use it. This provides clear usage context without direct sibling comparison.

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 by clarifying that the data is 'ACESSO PÚBLICO' and not private, and explains the prepaid credit model and lack of credentials. This goes beyond the structured annotations, though it does not describe all response 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 three sentences, each with a distinct role: purpose, operational model, and legal/data source context. It is concise and well-structured, with no 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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose, data source, access method, and legal responsibility, which is rich context for a simple enrichment tool. The only notable gap is the undocumented 'completo' parameter, but overall the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's 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?

The description mentions 'celular' and 'email' as the basis for enrichment, aligning with the required properties. However, it does not explain the 'completo' boolean parameter, and with 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to fully compensate for the parameter semantics. It adds no format or behavior details for the 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 'Enriquece um contato a partir do celular e do email, retornando os dados cadastrais associados,' specifying the action (enrich), inputs (cell phone and email), and output (associated registration data). It distinguishes from sibling tools like authenticate and marketplace, which serve entirely 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 provides usage context: 'Hospedado pela plataforma, sem credenciais, pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago' explains the operational requirements. It also notes the legitimate purpose under LGPD, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use, so it falls short of 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?

The description goes far beyond the annotations, which only provide generic hints (readOnlyHint=false, etc.). It discloses side effects: 'invoke works even when the MCP is NOT installed... without bloating the tool list'; auth implications: 'Writes (install/uninstall/subscribe/cancel and the one-off install behind invoke) require workspace owner/admin'; and failure modes: 'invoke returns a connect link... checkout/top-up link (the user opens it, then you retry).' No contradictions found 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 a single dense paragraph that covers a lot of ground, and every sentence does add functional value. However, it is not well-structured for rapid parsing—no list breaks, headers, or grouping of conceptually related actions (search/describe/invoke vs. install/uninstall vs. prompt library). This hurts scannability and makes the tool harder to grasp at a glance, despite the high information density.

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 (14 action values, 23 optional params, no output schema), the description is thorough. It explains the end-to-end flow, the one-off vs. permanent distinction, auth requirements, billing behavior, prompt library functions, and even the fact that search/describe flag installation status. It covers essentially all major behavioral contexts an agent would need to select and invoke actions 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by explaining action values and the role of tool_id/arguments in the flow. However, many parameters (limit, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, prompt_*) are never explained, leaving the agent to infer or guess. The description adds meaning for the core params but not for the full 23-parameter surface, so it doesn't fully compensate for the absence of schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific, verb-driven statement: 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It clearly enumerates distinct sub-functions (search, describe, invoke, install, list_tools, etc.) and contrasts with siblings like authenticate or connect by positioning itself as the catalog/execution layer. The purpose is unmistakable and well differentiated.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is embedded throughout: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT' directly tell when to choose one over the other. It also lists example use cases ('Covers capability requests like...') and describes the core flow (action=search → describe → invoke), giving the agent a clear decision path. No sibling alternatives are named, but the tool's own internal actions are well differentiated.

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 provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the conversation should be included for reproduction, which is useful behavioral context, but does not disclose other side effects or system interactions.

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 a key usage detail. No wasted words.

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 with no output schema, but the description leaves a gap by not clarifying the conversation type (array vs string) and not explaining the optional context parameter. It is adequate but not fully 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'conversation array' but the schema defines conversation as a string, which is misleading. It also fails to describe 'message' and 'context' parameters beyond their obvious roles.

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 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback' with a specific verb and resource, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like marketplace and 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?

It explicitly identifies when to use the tool (for bugs, missing features, feedback) and provides a contextual hint about including conversation for reproduction. However, it does not explicitly mention exceptions or alternative tools, but the sibling tools are unrelated.

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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds only 'current' to indicate live version retrieval; it does not disclose additional behavior such as caching or network dependency, but for a version check the annotations are sufficient.

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?

Single sentence, directly states the tool's purpose, no filler or unnecessary details. Instantly 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, read-only), the one-sentence description fully covers what the agent needs to know to 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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is complete. The description needs to add no parameter meaning; the baseline of 4 applies.

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?

Uses specific verb 'Show' and explicitly identifies the resource as 'current MCP platform and adapter versions'. This is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or report_bug, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 the use case: whenever version information is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but given the zero-parameter, read-only nature, the context is clear and no exclusion is necessary.

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, covering safety. The description adds value by detailing the actual content of the returned state: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and tool counts, giving the agent a clear picture of the output without needing an output schema.

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 begins with the action ('Returns') and immediately specifies the resource ('current toolkit state'), followed by a concise enumeration of contents. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It enumerates the key components of the return value, which is exactly what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its result. There is no missing information that would impair usability.

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 an empty object, so there is nothing to document. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the return value instead, which fully compensates for the absence of parameter information.

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: it returns the current toolkit state. It enumerates specific elements (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, count of catalog tools), making it distinct from sibling tools 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 the tool is used for status checks but does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings such as show_version (version info) or connect (establishing connections). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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