FGTS: Emissão de Guia Rápida

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

Although annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description does not contradict them. It adds behavioral context about the two modes (session-only vs permanent) and clarifies that calling with no args returns a link. It does not explicitly mention side effects, but the idempotent hint is consistent with the description. No contradiction found.

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 and front-loaded, but it mixes two scenarios (permanent config vs session) in one run-on sentence. It is still concise and every sentence earns its place, but the structure could be clearer by separating the two options. Not excessively long, but slightly dense.

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 (one optional param, no output schema) and the existence of annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the two usage modes and the token format. It lacks details about what the response looks like, but since there's no output schema, it could mention if the tool returns a success message or the link. Minor gap.

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 one optional parameter 'token' with no description. The description provides meaning: it explains that 'token' should be a JWT pasted by the user for session-only login. It also clarifies that the tool can be called with no args. This adds significant semantic value beyond the bare schema, despite the 0% schema coverage.

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 handle authentication for MCP.AI, specifically for IDE agents. It explains the two methods of authentication (adding to config for permanent connection or pasting a token for session-only). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' by focusing on the authentication workflow.

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: after the user pastes a token, or with no args to get the login link. It also explains the alternative of adding the token to the server config for permanent access, which implies when not to use this tool (for permanent setup). This provides clear context and alternatives.

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 readOnly and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful state-dependent behavior: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This is meaningful context 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes only behaviorally relevant detail. Every clause adds value and there is no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter surface and available annotations, the description explains the tool's two main result states well. It doesn't fully specify the shape of the returned URLs or pending contents, but it is adequate for such a simple status 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 there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter explanation is needed.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Returns connection status and URLs') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling authenticate by focusing on status rather than initiating auth. It doesn't name the sibling tool explicitly, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 conditional behavior implies this is for checking whether providers are connected and retrieving URLs when credentials are missing, but it never explicitly states when to use this over authenticate or other siblings. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given.

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=true and idempotentHint=trueestrutive=false. The description adds valuable context: payment per query with prepaid credits, no platform credentials needed, and data is not confidential. Also clarifies client responsibility under LGPD, which is behavioral context 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 paragraph of moderate length. It includes necessary legal disclaimers, but these could be more succinct. It's not excessively long, but it lacks structure (e.g., separate sections for usage) and interleaves legal text with functional description.

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 6 parameters with no schema descriptionsating. The description does not explain how to provide parameters, what the expected output is, or any prerequisites like needing a digital certificate. It also doesn't clarify what a 'Guia Rápida' is. Given the complexity (authentication, certificates, periods), the description is far from 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%. The description provides no explanation of the 6 parameters (periodo, login_cpf, login_senha, pkcs12_cert, pkcs12_pass, representado). Parameter names give hints (cpf login, password, cert), but the description fails to clarify their required format or purpose, which is critical since no schema descriptions exist.

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 'FGTS: Emissão de Guia Rápida, consulta em fonte oficial,' which clearly indicates a consult operation on the official FGTS source. It's distinct from sibling tools (authentication, connectivity, marketplace, etc.), but the purpose could be clearer about what exactly is returned (e.g., a guide document vs. raw data).

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 the data source and legal responsibility but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tools 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?

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that writes require workspace owner/admin, invoke runs one-off without bloating the toolkit, credential-gated MCPs return a connect link, and unpaid paid MCPs return a checkout/top-up link. It also notes publish_prompt links open without login. No contradiction with annotations found.

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 dense and front-loaded, opening with the tool's identity and then methodically walking through the core flow, key invoke behavior, install vs invoke distinction, billing/cancel functions, and the prompt library. Every sentence adds meaningful guidance; 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?

For a 14-action dispatcher with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers the search→describe→invoke workflow, one-off vs permanent installation, auth and payment failure modes, workspace permission requirements, installed flags, and the prompt-library feature. Minor omissions like the resume action do not materially hurt selection or invocation confidence.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the full parameter burden and does substantial work explaining the action enum, tool_id + arguments for invoke, prompt_vars for get_prompt, and prompt body/slug for publish. However, 23 parameters exist and some are never mentioned (resume, immediate, tier_slug, conversation, message, report_context, request_details), so it is not fully compensating.

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 explicitly states this is the official mcp.ai marketplace, cataloging every MCP/tool and providing the way to run them. It names concrete actions (search, describe, invoke, install, list_tools) and even covers the prompt-library subdomain, making the tool's role unmistakable.

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 an explicit core flow: search discovers MCPs, describe profiles them, invoke runs them. It also gives clear when-to-use guidance, such as 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', and 'request_mcp asks us to build a NEW MCP when nothing fits'.

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=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful hint to include conversation for reproduction but does not explain idempotency behavior or what happens after submission. It does not contradict 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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a specific usage hint. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives a clear purpose and a usage hint, but it does not clarify the expected response or resolve the conversation parameter type mismatch. It is adequate but has gaps in full context.

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 adds meaning to the 'conversation' parameter (recent messages for reproduction) but not to 'message' or 'context'. Additionally, it calls conversation an 'array' while the schema defines it as a string, creating ambiguity. Overall, partial compensation is provided.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This distinguishes it from all sibling tools (authenticate, connect, fgts_guia_rapida_consultar, marketplace, show_version, toolkit_info), none of which perform reporting 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 clear context for when to use the tool ('Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback') and even gives an instruction on what to include (the conversation array). It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but since siblings are unrelated, this is not necessary. No exclusions are stated.

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 establish this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context by specifying that it covers both MCP platform and adapter versions and indicates current state, going slightly beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes meaning, making it efficient 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?

For a zero-parameter, low-risk version-check tool with strong annotations, the description is largely sufficient. The only minor gap is that no output schema exists and the exact return format is not stated, but the tool's purpose makes the expected output reasonably obvious.

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 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter burden to compensate for. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because the schema fully documents the absence of inputs.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It clearly states what the tool does and is distinguishable from siblings like authenticate, connect, and marketplace because it is specifically for version introspection.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when version information is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools such as toolkit_info, nor any exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds detail on the content returned, which is consistent with read-only behavior. No side effects or permissions are mentioned, but annotations cover safety.

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?

One sentence, concise, no fluff, directly states what is returned.

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 input/output schemas, description is sufficient to understand the tool's purpose and output content. It lists key elements, 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?

No parameters exist, so baseline score of 4 applies. Description doesn't need to explain 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?

Description clearly states the tool returns current toolkit state with specifics: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. It distinguishes from siblings like 'show_version' which presumably returns version info.

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?

Description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others, e.g., it doesn't say 'use this to check connectivity' or 'call this after connecting'. However, the purpose implies it's for general status checks, but explicit guidance is missing.

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