INMETRO: Cronotacógrafo

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains that no-args returns a link, token-based input performs a session-only login, and a configured header creates a non-expiring connection. It does not describe the response after a successful token submission, but for a simple authentication flow with annotations present, the behavioral coverage is reasonably complete.

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 text is compact and every sentence contributes to explaining an authentication path. However, it reads as a run-on paragraph with multiple modes squeezed together, and the 'MCP.AI for IDE agents' preamble adds context without tightening the tool description itself.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main scenarios: request a link, paste a token, or configure a permanent header. It would benefit from explicitly stating what the response or session state will be after a successful token login, but the agent has enough information to select and 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by naming the only parameter, token, explaining it is an optional JWT, and wiring its presence/absence to different behavior. It does not state exact format requirements or error handling, but the core semantics are adequately 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 clearly indicates that this tool handles authentication: it can return a browser login link or accept a token to complete a session-only login. The action is identifiable, but the opening phrase 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)' is product-like and slightly obscures a crisp statement of what the tool itself does.

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 usage paths: no arguments to get the link, token argument after the user pastes one, or permanent configuration via an Authorization header. It does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools like connect, but it clearly distinguishes session-only from permanent authentication.

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 readOnly and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context: what happens when all providers are connected (authenticated:true, empty pending[]) versus when credentials are missing (returns connect_url). This goes beyond annotations and reveals output states.

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 with no redundancy. Every clause adds meaningful information about the tool's behavior and return values.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fully explains the expected return: authenticated flag, pending array, and connect_url in various states. This is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool will produce.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-related details, so it stays at baseline.

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: returning connection status and URLs. It also differentiates from siblings like authenticate by focusing on status output rather than authentication 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 implicitly indicates usage for checking connection status, with clear scenario-based behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like authenticate, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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 false, but the description adds significant behavioral context beyond that: it is a paid service (prepaid credit), requires no platform credentials, returns non-confidential public data, and imposes LGPD compliance duties on the client. This provides operational and legal transparency not contained in 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 concise and well-structured. It opens with the core purpose, then provides payment, credential, and legal details in a single paragraph. Every sentence carries meaningful information without any redundancy or 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 the tool's purpose, data source, payment model, and legal aspects, which are useful contextual details. However, it omits parameter usage guidance and does not describe the output format for the query, which is important for a tool without an output schema. The absence of parameter semantics makes the description incomplete for practical 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 0% description coverage for the parameters 'placa' and 'chassi', and the description does not mention or explain them at all. Given the low schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it fails to clarify whether these are optional, required, or how they relate to the query. This is a critical gap.

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 performs a consultation (consulta) on official INMETRO tachograph data via an official source. The verb 'consulta' and the resource 'INMETRO: Cronotacógrafo' are specific, and the tool is distinct from sibling platform tools like 'authenticate' or 'marketplace'.

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 when to use the tool (for querying official Brazilian data) and provides important context such as prepaid credit, no platform credentials, and LGPD responsibilities. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' instructions or named alternatives, so it falls short of full 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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), the description discloses critical behaviors: invoke works even when MCP is not installed, returns connect/checkout links for auth/billing failures, and highlights that writes require workspace owner/admin. It also clarifies that search/describe flag installed status. No contradictions with annotations; transparency is high.

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 well-organized: it leads with the core flow, highlights the KEY invoke capability, then distinguishes install vs invoke, lists remaining actions, and finally covers the prompt library. It is front-loaded with critical info and packs dense, useful content without fluff, though the length could be slightly trimmed for readability.

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 actions, no output schema, many parameters), the description covers all major aspects: core workflow, permission requirements, auth/billing behavior, prompt library, and when to use which action. It provides enough context for an agent to select and execute the correct action in most scenarios, making it very 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?

With 23 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of action values and core parameters like mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, and prompt-related ones through the action descriptions, but many parameters (limit, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, etc.) are not explicitly explained. The description gives a high-level flow but does not systematically map parameters, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 role: 'the official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It enumerates the major actions (search, describe, invoke, install) and distinguishes from siblings like authenticate and report_bug by framing itself as the central marketplace hub. The verb-resource pairing is explicit for each action.

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 flow: 'action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns one MCP's full profile ... so you pick the right tool_id → invoke RUNS that tool.' Also gives direct comparison: 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use.' Clearly states when not to use (avoid install for one-off) and notes write permissions for owner/admin.

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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the reproduction guidance (conversation array) but does not disclose additional behavioral aspects like whether a report is actually sent, any side effects, or auth requirements. Since annotations cover base safety, a middle score is appropriate; the description adds context but not rich behavioral detail.

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, with the purpose stated in the first sentence and a key usage detail in the second. It is front-loaded, has zero filler, and every word contributes to understanding the tool. This is an ideal length for the tool's simplicity.

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 and 3 parameters (one required), the description covers the core action and one parameter, but omits the meaning of 'message' and 'context' entirely. It also does not explain what happens after the report or any expected response. For a simple tool, it is adequate but not complete in explaining all schema elements.

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 explains the 'conversation' parameter ('conversation array with recent messages') but does not explain the 'message' parameter (beyond being the report content) or the optional 'context' parameter. Since it provides partial parameter information, it earns a 3, but it falls short of covering all three 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 the tool's function: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This is a specific verb (report) with a clear resource scope (bug/feature/feedback), and none of the sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) overlap with this purpose. The description fully distinguishes it from alternatives.

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 a concrete usage directive: 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' This tells the agent what to include when invoking the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but given the distinct purpose and sibling list, the guidance is adequate and contextually clear.

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 idempotentHint=true, so the description's addition of 'current' and the detail about platform and adapter versions adds a bit of context. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, output format, or other behavioral details, though these are less critical for a version check. This matches the standard for a 3.

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, perfectly front-loaded with the verb, no wasted words. Every part 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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains its function. It tells the user exactly what it does—display versions—and there's no missing information that would be relevant for this simple operation.

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?

There are zero parameters, giving a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema has 100% coverage (vacuously).

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 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions' clearly states the verb 'Show' and the resource (platform and adapter versions). It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'authenticate', which have 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 context is clear: an agent should use this tool when it needs version information. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but given its simplicity and the obvious distinction from siblings, the lack of exclusions is acceptable for a 4.

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. The description adds detail about what information is returned (installed MCPs, status, accounts, catalog counts), which goes beyond the basic 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'returns', and provides a concise enumeration of the returned information. Every clause adds value, appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description fully specifies what the state information includes. It is complete and matches the read-only annotation.

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 locked by the schema (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description's details about output are adequate.

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 purpose: returns the current toolkit state, listing installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect or authenticate.

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 toolkit status but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It's clear enough for a read-only diagnostic tool, but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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