IBAMA: Certificado de Regularidade

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: calling with no args generates a link, while passing a token creates a session-only login. It also differentiates between permanent (config-based) and session-only authentication, which goes beyond the basic readOnlyHint and idempotentHint flags.

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, but every clause provides necessary information about the two authentication modes. It could be structured into separate sentences, but it remains within a reasonable length and front-loads the primary purpose.

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 functionality: how to obtain a link, how to use a token, and the distinction between permanent and session access. It lacks explicit return-value documentation for the token-pasting case, but for a simple auth tool with no output schema, the existing context is adequate.

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 defines token as a string with no description, but the description explains it's a JWT to paste for session-only login. It also clarifies the no-arg invocation, fully compensating for the 0% schema coverage and adding meaning to the parameter.

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: logging into the browser and obtaining an access token. It mentions IDE agents (Cursor) and explains the browser login flow, which distinguishes it from unrelated siblings like marketplace or show_version, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 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 provides explicit instructions on when to use this tool: either with no args to receive an authentication link, or with a token to establish a session. It also recommends configuring a permanent Authorization header as an alternative, giving clear guidance on usage contexts.

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, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful response-state context: what happens when all providers are connected versus when credentials are missing. It does not explain partial connectivity in detail, but pending[] implies it.

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 core purpose, and includes only essential conditional details. Every sentence earns its place without 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool without an output schema, the description adequately explains main return scenarios. It could more explicitly describe partial-connectivity states, but the reference to pending[] provides a reasonable implication.

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 empty input schema fully captures the input surface. The description adds context about outputs rather than parameters, which the 0-param baseline treats as sufficient.

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 returns connection status and URLs, with specific conditional outputs such as authenticated:true and empty pending[] versus connect_url. This differentiates it from sibling tools like authenticate by positioning it as a status/checking tool rather than an action 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?

The description implies the tool is used to inspect connection status and obtain URLs when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or say 'use authenticate to provide credentials', so it stops short of full when-to-use guidance.

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 behavioral details beyond the annotations: it requires payment (prepaid credit), does not require platform credentials, and clarifies that the data is not confidential and the client is the data controller. These are transparent and consistent with read-only and idempotent hints, enhancing the agent's understanding of side effects and responsibilities.

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 main purpose in the first sentence, then adds payment and legal notes. It is reasonably concise but includes some redundancy (e.g., 'fonte oficial' and 'fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros') and verbose legal statements. Overall, it is well-structured and not excessively long.

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 lacks essential operational details: it does not specify which parameter to use (cpf vs cnpj) or if both are accepted, it does not describe the expected output or data format (no output schema), and it omits error handling (e.g., insufficient credit, invalid IDs). While it provides legal context, it is insufficient for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret the 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 schema defines two parameters (cpf and cnpj) with no descriptions, and the description does not explain their meaning or usage. It only mentions the consultation without referencing the parameters. There is no compensation for the missing schema coverage, so parameter semantics are essentially absent.

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 consult IBAMA regularity certificates from official sources. The verb 'consultar' is specific, and the resource (IBAMA certificate) is identified. It is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace, so no confusion.

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 by noting it is a paid consultation with prepaid credit and that no platform credentials are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or prerequisites beyond payment. The legal disclaimers provide some context but not direct usage guidance.

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 annotations only indicate non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent behavior, so the description carries the transparency burden and delivers richly. It discloses that invoke runs uninstalled MCPs one-off, returns auth/payment links when needed, requires owner/admin for writes, and flags installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace. 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 long but dense and well-organized, with each sentence adding non-redundant operational detail. It front-loads the most decision-critical guidance (invoke vs install) and groups related concepts, but the density and length keep it from being maximally concise.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers discovery, invocation, permissions, auth/payment edge cases, optional install behavior, and the separate prompt library. It does not explain return shapes or all parameter formats, but the workflow is sufficiently actionable for an agent to select and call the tool 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?

With 23 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the main action values, tool_id selection, arguments, prompt vars, and request fields. However, several parameters such as limit, immediate, tier_slug, conversation, cancel fields, and report_context remain unexplained, so coverage is strong but incomplete.

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 mcp.ai marketplace: a catalog for discovering MCPs/tools and running them, with an explicit search → describe → invoke core flow. It separates this umbrella tool from siblings by covering marketplace-specific actions, invocation semantics, and the prompt library.

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 gives explicit decision guidance: use invoke for one-off/occasional use, use install only to make an MCP permanent, prefer invoke to avoid bloating the toolkit, and retry after connect/checkout links. It also states that writes require workspace owner/admin and distinguishes billing and feedback actions.

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 the tool is non-destructive and idempotent, lowering the burden. The description adds practical guidance on including the conversation array for reproduction, enriching context 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?

Two concise, purposeful sentences with no fluff. The core action and key instruction are front-loaded.

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, lack of output schema, and strong annotations, the description is adequately complete. It explains the main action and critical input for reproduction, though it could detail expected effects.

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 the 'conversation' parameter implicitly and clarifies its purpose, but does not explain 'context' or 'message'. This leaves some parameters under-specified.

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 it reports bugs, missing features, or sends feedback, using specific verbs and a resource. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like 'marketplace' 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?

It conveys when to use (upon encountering a bug, missing feature, or wanting to give feedback) and what to include (conversation array). It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear enough.

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 clearly declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds what versions it shows (platform and adapter) but doesn't discuss side effects, auth, or error conditions. Given annotations cover safety, this is adequate but minimal.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action (Show) and the resource (versions). 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?

Simple tool with no parameters and no output schema. Description fully captures what it does. Annotations cover safety. Complete for its purpose.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% vacuously. Per rules, baseline is 4 when there are 0 parameters. No additional parameter info 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It uses a specific verb (Show) and clearly identifies the resource (MCP platform and adapter versions), distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate or report_bug.

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 retrieving version information but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since there is no competing version tool among siblings Regulatory, the context is clear, though no exclusions 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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by listing the specific pieces of state returned, going beyond the minimal safety hints. 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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the returned items. Every phrase earns its place, with 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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns. It could add nuance about whether connection status is live or cached, but for a simple read-only informational tool, the description is complete enough.

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, which receives a baseline of 4. There is no parameter detail needed, and the description does not need to compensate for missing schema info.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state') and details the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools 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?

It is implied that this tool is used when you need an overview of the toolkit's state, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it versus alternatives (e.g., show_version for just version info). No 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.