INCRA SIGEF: Parcelas

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false, but the description adds valuable context: it states non-expiring connection via config, session-only login when pasted, and that calling with no args returns a link. This goes beyond 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?

Description is informative and organized, but a bit long. It front-loads audience and purpose, then explains methods. Could be tightened slightly, but every sentence adds value.

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 (auth flow, multiple methods), the description covers main use cases, token formats, and persistence options. It lacks details about error handling or token validation, but sufficient for typical agent use.

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 explains the token parameter's meaning: it expects a JWT pasted by the user for session login. Even though schema coverage is 0%, the description provides essential semantics for the optional token parameter and clarifies behavior when omitted.

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 is for authentication within IDE agents, providing a login link and token exchange. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on auth for MCP.AI, though it does not explicitly name specific sibling tools to contrast against.

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 when-to-use instructions: for IDE agents, how to do permanent login via config header, or session-only login by pasting token. Also explains alternative of adding to config. Clear usage scenarios and steps.

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 behavior context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint): it explains two distinct output states (all providers connected vs. missing credentials) and notes URLs for both toolkit and per-install. This is useful but doesn't cover every edge case.

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 core purpose, followed by behavioral details. No fluff, efficient 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?

For a parameterless status tool with no output schema, the description covers essential behaviors and states. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact structure of URLs but overall is complete enough for the tool's simplicity.

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 carries no parameter burden. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; no further 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 clearly states 'Returns connection status and URLs' with specific detail about output states (authenticated:true, pending[], connect_url). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, which focuses on establishing connections.

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 it versus alternatives. Sibling tools like authenticate are not mentioned, and no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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 and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful business context: payment via prepaid credit, no platform credentials, and LGPD data-controller responsibility. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like rate limits, response size, or any need for specific authentication beyond the provided login fields.

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 that mixes purpose with payment and legal details. It front-loads the core purpose but includes ancillary information that could be condensed. It is not overly long, but the legal and payment aspects could be seen as noise for an agent focused on querying data.

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 (8 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what each parameter does, what the response contains, or how pagination works. It only vaguely mentions 'consulta' without detailing the expected data structure, leaving significant gaps for correct usage.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of any of the 8 parameters. Parameter names like 'pkcs12_cert' and 'codigo_imovel' are left undefined, forcing the agent to guess their meaning. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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: consulting INCRA SIGEF parcel data from official Brazilian sources. It specifies the resource ('Parcelas') and the verb 'consulta' (query). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the purpose is distinct from authentication, connection, or marketplace 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 provides some context (e.g., payment with prepaid credit, official source) but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or when not to use it, relying on the tool's name and general context to imply suitability.

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 are sparse (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so description carries the burden and delivers: it discloses the hidden one-off install side-effect behind invoke, that writes require workspace owner/admin, and the billing/credential flows (connect link, checkout/top-up link). No contradiction with annotations; adds genuine value beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with a strong opener and every sentence adds value, but it is one massive dense paragraph covering two distinct domains (MCP flow and prompt library) without any structural breaks. Despite substantial content, lack of organization reduces scannability for an agent.

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 high complexity (23 params, 14 actions, two domains, no output schema), the description covers the primary flows thoroughly — search/describe/invoke lifecycle, invoke's one-off semantics, billing/auth link returns, list_tools, release/billing actions, and the prompt library. Gaps remain on exact return formats and the semantics of the many secondary params, but core completeness is strong.

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% across 23 params, so description must compensate. It richly explains the core flow params (action enum semantics, tool_id, arguments, mcp_id, install/one-off behavior) and partial prompt params (prompt_vars, prompt_slug shareable link). However, many params (limit, query, immediate, tier_slug, conversation, prompt_targets, cancel_reason, report_context, etc.) remain unelaborated.

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?

Opening sentence states verb+resource precisely: 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It then lays out the search→describe→invoke flow and scopes the tool to two domains (MCP catalog/runner + prompt library), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like connect, authenticate, and toolkit_info by explaining the connect/checkout link hand-off and the one-off run capability.

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?

Extremely explicit when-to-use guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', the core flow for capability requests, and the separate prompt-library path (search_prompts vs get_prompt). It names alternatives within the tool and across the flow, explaining exactly when each action is appropriate.

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 idempotency, non-read-only, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining the 'conversation' parameter's role in 'reproduction,' but does not disclose any side effects, rate limits, or server-side actions beyond what annotations imply. It neither contradicts nor richly extends the structured metadata.

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 two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first two words. Every word earns its place; there is no extraneous detail. This is an ideal model of conciseness.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential 'what' and the key instruction for reproduction. However, it omits any mention of error handling, confirmation behavior, or whether arguments are truncated, leaving some ambiguity about edge cases. It feels minimally viable but not exhaustive.

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 mentions the 'conversation array' and ties it to 'reproduction,' but does not clarify that it is a JSON-encoded string (default '[]'), and other parameters 'context' and 'message' remain undocumented. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' The verb 'report' and noun 'bug/feature/feedback' are specific, and the purpose is easily distinguishable 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 gives a direct instruction on what to include ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'), which implies when to use it (when reporting an issue). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use marketplace for purchases'), leaving the when-not-to-use context implicit.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully disclosing the tool's safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., whether it requires network, what exactly it returns). Since annotations already cover the key traits, a mid score is appropriate; the description is consistent but does not enrich beyond the structured data.

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, tightly worded sentence that conveys the core purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it maximally concise and readable.

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, the lack of parameters, and the comprehensive annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description is fully complete. It clearly states the tool's purpose, and no further details (like return format) are necessary for a version display tool. The absence of an output schema is acceptable since the description itself implies a simple informational output.

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 nothing to explain. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is given since the description correctly implies no inputs are needed and does not need to clarify any schema details.

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: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It specifies the resource (versions) and the action (show), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle authentication, connection, parcel consulting, marketplace, bug reporting, and toolkit info. No ambiguity exists.

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 (call when you need version info) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It is a simple informational tool, but the lack of explicit guidance, especially given the existence of a 'toolkit_info' sibling, leaves some room for interpretation.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, which already communicate a safe, idempotent read. The description adds value by listing what state is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the bare annotations. However, it does not disclose potential costs (e.g., network calls to check MCP connection status) or mention what happens if an MCP is unreachable, which could be relevant for a tool whose entire purpose is reporting connectivity.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and quickly enumerates the four aspects of the state. No filler words, no repetition of the tool name, and no structural waste. The output schema is absent (correctly, since this tool returns unstructured text or a mix), so no schema documentation is expected in the 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?

For a zero-argument, read-only introspection tool with strong annotations (idempotent, read-only, not destructive, not open-world), the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent exactly what it will get back (MCPs, statuses, accounts, catalog counts) which is sufficient for deciding whether to call this vs alternatives. The only minor gap is not mentioning whether connection checks are synchronous/expensive, but for a state-info tool this is a small omission given the intended triviality of the call.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (vacuously), there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The description appropriately focuses on return-value semantics instead of parameters, which is exactly the right trade-off for a no-argument introspection tool. This fully compensates for the absence of parameters by explaining what the return value contains.

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 enumerates exactly what the state includes (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). It provides scope and content details that distinguish this from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'marketplace'. The plural 'tools' and 'catalog' also clarifies this surfaces aggregate info, not a single entity.

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 it's a read-only informational tool for discovering toolkit state, which is useful at the start of a session or when troubleshooting connectivity. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings such as 'show_version' or 'marketplace', nor when not to use it. With several sibling tools, an explicit 'use this when you need an overview; use show_version for version info only' would have elevated this score.

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