IBAMA Embargos

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

Annotations (idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) are complemented by description details: the tool can return a link (no args) or accept a JWT token for session authentication, and the token can be stored permanently in config. This goes beyond annotation-only information without contradicting 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 concise and information-dense, using two sentences to cover purpose, best practice, and invocation patterns. Every clause serves a purpose, and the structure (context → recommended method → alternative) is clear.

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 auth tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the core flows (config-based permanent login, session-only with token, link retrieval). It doesn't detail response formats or error cases, but these are not critical for correct 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 schema has only one undocumented token parameter (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining the token as a JWT, how to pass it, and the no-args alternative. This provides enough meaning for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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: authentication for MCP.AI IDE agents, with a specific verb ('log in') and resource (the MCP server). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing exclusively on the auth flow, including browser login and token exchange.

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 context: when to use (for IDE agents), the best practice (add token to config as header), and the session-only alternative (pass token or no args to get link). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, 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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about return values in two different scenarios, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, no unnecessary words. Very 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It covers the all-connected and missing-credentials cases but omits partial-connection states. Still, given the tool's simplicity and good annotations, it is fairly 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100% by default. The baseline for 0 params is 4; the description appropriately does not need to add parameter-level 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?

Description clearly states it returns connection status and URLs, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than performing authentication.

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 provides behavioral conditions (all connected vs missing credentials) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'authenticate'. Usage context is implied but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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 mark the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: no credentials needed, payment via pre-paid credit, public data source, and LGPD controller obligations. Nothing contradicts 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?

Three sentences: first gives the core action and target, the second gives operational and data-source context, the third adds LGPD responsibility. It is front-loaded and every sentence carries information, though the 'Hospedado pela plataforma' clause is minor 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 covers purpose, authentication, cost, data classification, and legal responsibility, but leaves the 'completo' parameter undefined and contains ambiguity about CPF/CNPJ being alternative vs both required. Since no output schema exists, the output is only implied by 'Emite a certidão'.

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% and 'completo' is not mentioned in the description. The description clarifies that CPF/CNPJ refer to person/company, but it says 'CPF ou CNPJ' while the schema requires both, and it does not explain the 'completo' boolean, formats, or optionality. Therefore the description insufficiently compensates for the lack 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 phrase 'Emite a certidão negativa de embargos ambientais do IBAMA' and identifies the target via CPF/CNPJ. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which are platform-level operations.

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 states the exact use case: obtaining an IBAMA environmental embargo negative certificate for a person or company. It provides clear context (public data, hosted, pre-paid credit) but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives; however, sibling tools are unrelated, so no conflicting choice exists.

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 well beyond the annotations by explaining the key side effects and conditions: invoke runs a tool one-off without adding it to the toolkit, may return a connect link or checkout link, install makes an MCP permanent, and writes require owner/admin. It also notes that search/describe flag installed status. This discloses critical behavior not evident from the sparse annotations, and 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 long but information-dense, covering multiple sub-tools and workflows in a single paragraph. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses explicit markers like 'KEY:' to highlight critical behaviors. While it could be broken into sections for readability, every sentence contributes meaningful content without significant 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 tool's complexity (23 parameters, 14 actions, no output schema, weak annotations), the description provides a strong overview of behavior, permissions, payment/auth handling, and the prompt library. However, it omits certain actions like 'resume' and does not explain all parameters, leaving minor gaps. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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, the description must compensate. It explains the action enum in detail (search, describe, install, invoke, etc.) and implicitly defines mcp_id, tool_id, and arguments through the core workflow. However, many other parameters (limit, query, message, immediate, tier_slug, prompt_*, conversation, etc.) are not described, leaving their semantics unclear. The description adds value for the central parameters but not for the full parameter surface.

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, a catalog of MCP/tools and a way to run them. It distinguishes its scope by enumerating the core flow (search → describe → invoke) and its role as a meta-tool for both discovering and executing MCPs, while also covering the separate prompt library. This is a specific, resource-focused statement that differentiates it from sibling tools.

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 explains when to use invoke versus install: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'. It also outlines the auth/payment flows (connect link, checkout link) and clarifies that writes require workspace owner/admin. It further distinguishes the prompt library (search_prompts, get_prompt, publish_prompt) from MCP actions, providing clear usage guidance within the tool.

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 idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds the instruction to include the conversation array for reproduction, providing useful context. However, it does not disclose what happens when a report is sent (e.g., where it goes, confirmation), so the behavioral picture remains partial.

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 entire description is a single sentence that efficiently communicates purpose and a key parameter instruction. There is no redundancy or filler, making it 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 simple reporting tool with no output schema, the description covers core purpose and the most important parameter. However, it omits details about the 'context' parameter and any response behavior, leaving some gaps for an agent that needs to use it effectively.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains only the 'conversation' parameter (for reproduction), but the 'message' and 'context' parameters are left undefined. Although 'message' is inferable from the tool's purpose, 'context' remains ambiguous, and the overall parameter semantics are under-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 starts with 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback,' which clearly states the action and the target. It also mentions including conversation array for reproduction, adding specificity and distinguishing this 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?

The description defines exactly when to use this tool: for reporting bugs, missing features, or feedback. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear given 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which align with the description's 'Show.' The description adds no extra behavioral context such as auth requirements or output format, but given the simple nature of the tool and the annotations, this is acceptable though not enhanced.

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, focused sentence that directly states the tool's function with no unnecessary words or filler. It is perfectly concise and 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only version tool with clear annotations, the description is fully adequate. There is no output schema, but the return value is self-explanatory, and the sibling tool list does not introduce ambiguity.

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 input schema covers 100% of them (none). The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, so the baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('versions'), and it is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which have 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 implies the tool is used when version information is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention any alternatives. Since no sibling tool appears to provide version info, the context is clear but not explicitly elaborated.

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, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context about what the state includes (MCPs, connections, accounts, catalog counts) beyond those hints, 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, information-dense sentence front-loaded with the main action ('Returns the current toolkit state'). It enumerates relevant details concisely without redundancy, making it easily 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 has no parameters, no output schema, and annotations that capture its safe read nature, the description sufficiently explains the return content. It could include the exact structure, but the listed components are enough for a zero-parameter info 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 description adds no parameter semantics. The schema is trivially complete, and the baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 components: installed MCPs, their connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version (likely version info) and authenticate/connect (actions).

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (when needing toolkit state or connection status) and provides context for using it to inspect accounts or MCPs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the purpose is self-evident.

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