INPI: Processo de Registro de Marca (Completa)

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by explaining the token's persistence (non-expiring vs session-only) and the two distinct call modes, which is not captured 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 a single, dense sentence that packs a lot of actionable information. It is front-loaded with the purpose and effectively uses 'Best:' and 'Or' to structure options, though breaking into separate sentences would improve 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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: authentication flow, token persistence, usage options, and initialization via config. It is complete for an agent to invoke 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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains the optional 'token' parameter: how to supply it after the user pastes a JWT, and that omitting it will return an authentication link. This provides complete semantic meaning beyond the bare schema definition.

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 authenticates the user by logging into a browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing solely on the authentication flow, with explicit mention of the token acquisition and usage.

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 guidance on when and how to use the tool: it recommends adding the token to the server config for permanent access, or passing a token for session-only login, or calling with no args to get a link. This clarifies the preferred approach and alternatives clearly.

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 and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by detailing the response structure and conditional fields, which is beyond the annotation hints.

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, two sentences, with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and directly addresses the tool's behavior.

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 parameters and an implicit output, the description covers the two primary outcomes (authenticated and missing credentials). It is complete enough for typical use cases, though it doesn't mention error handling.

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 the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters and doesn't add anything about them.

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, with explicit conditional outcomes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' and 'toolkit_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?

The description implies usage when checking connection status, and the two scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials) give clear context. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds beyond this by disclosing the prepaid billing model, lack of platform credentials, official/public data source, non-confidential nature, and LGPD data-controller responsibility. It does not disclose rate limits or exact return format, preventing a perfect score.

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 core purpose and remains relatively short. Each sentence adds some useful context, though there is mild redundancy around 'fonte oficial' and 'fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros', and the LGPD sentence is more legal boilerplate than tool behavior.

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 one-parameter read-only query tool, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it: it states the source, the data type, payment requirements, credential requirements, and legal context. However, with no output schema, it does not describe return payload or error behavior, which keeps it from being fully 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 for the only parameter, 'numero_processo', is 0%, and the description must compensate but does not. It only implies that the parameter is an INPI trademark-registration process number, without specifying format, examples, or valid patterns. Some value is added through domain context, but the gap remains significant.

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 querying a trademark registration process at INPI, using a specific verb ('consulta') and a specific resource ('Processo de Registro de Marca'). It is clearly distinct from the generic sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) and explicitly mentions the official source.

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 operational context: it is hosted on the platform, requires no platform credentials, is paid per query with prepaid credits, and accesses official Brazilian public data. It does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, but there are no close sibling tools, so the context is sufficient.

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 readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds substantial operational context: invoke works even when the MCP is not installed, returns connect/checkout links for auth or payment, and writes require workspace owner/admin. It does not contradict the annotations; uninstall/cancel are permission-gated mutations consistent with destructiveHint=false.

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 dense paragraph but front-loads the value proposition and uses a clear search→describe→invoke narrative, with the prompt library cleanly separated at the end. It is somewhat run-on with capitalized connectors, but every major sentence earns its place given the tool's breadth.

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?

Despite 23 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a strong mental model: discovery, profiling, one-off invocation, permanent installation, permissions, auth/payment fallbacks, and the separate prompt library. It does not spell out return payloads or every action's exact behavior, but it is substantially complete for such a complex 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does by explaining the action enum semantics (search, describe, invoke, install, prompt actions) and the prompt_vars flow ('get_prompt returns full text with {{variables}} filled'). However, several parameters such as tier_slug, immediate, prompt_targets, and cancel_reason are left to schema defaults/enums without much narrative, so compensation is good but not exhaustive.

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 'official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them' and then enumerates concrete capability requests ('find an MCP that does X', 'consulta um CPF', 'is there a tool for Y'). This clearly marks it as a catalog-plus-execution dispatcher rather than a single-purpose utility, and it differentiates itself from siblings like authenticate/connect/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?

It lays out an explicit core flow: action=search discovers MCPs → describe returns profiles → invoke runs the chosen tool, and it gives direct preference rules such as 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'. It also clarifies that list_tools shows what is callable right now, giving the agent concrete 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?

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which are helpful. The description adds that the conversation array should be included for reproduction, which is a behavioral expectation. However, it doesn't disclose what happens after reporting (e.g., no response, confirmation), or any potential side effects beyond idempotency. The description doesn't contradict annotations, so no contradiction flag.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the action. It includes a functional note about the conversation parameter. It's concise, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing parameters) but that's not necessary.

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 3 parameters, one required, and no output schema. The description is sparse. It doesn't explain the expected format of 'conversation' (string? maybe JSON) or what 'context' is for. It also doesn't mention any response or behavior after submission. Given the tool's complexity (simple form submission), it might be adequate, but for an AI agent, more detail on parameter semantics would help. The description covers the essentials but leaves out important details for successful 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. The description mentions 'conversation array' but doesn't explain the 'message' or 'context' fields. It tells users to include the conversation array but doesn't clarify the format or how 'context' is used. This is a gap since the schema provides no descriptions for the 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 states the tool's purpose: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It uses a specific verb (report/send) and resources (bug, feature, feedback). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, but the sibling list includes unrelated tools like authenticate and marketplace, so ambiguity is low.

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 tells users to include the conversation array for reproduction, which implies when to use it (when providing repro context). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use alternatives or contrast with any other feedback mechanism. The guidance is clear but limited.

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, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds specific detail: it shows 'MCP platform and adapter versions', which is beyond the annotations. This clarifies what kind of information is returned. It does not describe the exact output format, but since the tool is read-only and simple, this is acceptable. No contradictions. The description adds value by specifying the exact scope of the version information.

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 one sentence, concise, and to the point. It is front-loaded with the action verb 'Show'. It wastes no words. Could be slightly more informative, but it's effective. Given the simplicity of the tool, it is appropriately concise. Justification for 4: It's not overly verbose, but it doesn't include any additional context about output or usage. Yet, for a tool with zero params and a clear purpose, a single sentence is acceptable. It earns a 4.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, read-only), the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what the tool does and what it returns (current versions). It doesn't specify the structure of the return value, but the agent can infer it's a list or object of version strings. The annotations cover safety, and the description covers the purpose. There's no missing parameter information. Compared to the calibration example of a filtered-list tool, this is similar in completeness. A 4 is warranted; it could explicitly mention that it returns version numbers for both the platform and adapters, but the description already says that. I rate it 4.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is effectively 100% (no properties). There is no parameter semantics to worry about. The description doesn't mention parameters because there are none. For a zero-parameter tool, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description accurately implies that no arguments are 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 what the tool does: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' This is a specific verb (show) plus a specific resource (versions). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' or 'connect' since none of those imply version information. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'adapter versions' refers to, but the purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly mention that it is a read-only informational tool, but the annotations cover that. Since it doesn't explicitly differentiate from a hypothetical sibling that also shows versions (none exist here), it merits a 4 rather than a 5.

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 the context for use: checking current versions. It implies this is for informational purposes, probably before troubleshooting or verifying compatibility. However, it doesn't state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives. Sibling tools include 'toolkit_info' which might also provide version-related info, but the description doesn't clarify when to choose 'show_version' over 'toolkit_info'. Thus, it has a clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance, placing it at 3.

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. The description adds value by specifying exactly what snapshot is returned (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, tool counts) without contradicting the annotations. It does not discuss edge cases like stale state or permission requirements, but these are less critical for a read-only info call.

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 with the main action front-loaded and a compact list of return categories. Every clause adds information; no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 low-complexity, zero-parameter info tool with annotations covering safety, the description is fully adequate. It lists the main facets of the toolkit state, which substitutes for an output schema by telling the agent what to expect.

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 schema cannot benefit from additional parameter descriptions. Per baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate; the description correctly focuses on return content rather than 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Returns' and names the resource 'current toolkit state', then enumerates concrete contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like connect, authenticate, and 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 implies the tool is for inspecting current toolkit/connection state but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against sibling tools such as connect or authenticate. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage context implicit.

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