JUCESP: Download de Documento

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

The description clarifies that calling with no args returns a link and calling with a token authenticates. It does not contradict annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and provides context about the login process.

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 somewhat verbose but provides necessary step-by-step guidance. It is structured with conditional instructions, which aids clarity without being overly 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 covers the entire authentication process from obtaining a login link to using the token, including an alternative permanent configuration. It does not detail output, but that is acceptable since no output schema is provided.

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 only parameter, 'token', is clearly explained: it is the access token to paste for session login. The description also clarifies that it is optional (no args to get the link). This fully covers the schema.

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 the tool is for authentication, distinct from sibling tools like 'connect' and 'show_version'. It explains the login flow but could be more direct about the primary purpose.

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 explains how to use the tool: call with no args to get a login link, then call with a token. It also suggests a permanent configuration method, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or specify when to use it over others.

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 covered. The description adds useful conditional behavior: returns 'authenticated:true' and empty 'pending[]' when connected, or 'connect_url' URLs when credentials are missing. This goes beyond 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, no wasted words. Each sentence adds meaningful detail about the conditional 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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior for both relevant scenarios (all connected vs missing credentials). The tool is simple and the description is sufficient for an agent to select and call 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics rather than parameters, since none exist to explain.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('connection status and URLs'). It differentiates itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by being a read-only status check rather than an authentication 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?

The description provides clear context: it reports connection status, with conditional behavior for connected vs missing credentials. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent would know when to call it for status checking.

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, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: hosted platform, no credential requirement, prepaid per-query billing, official Brazilian sources, non-confidential data, and LGPD accountability. It does not mention output format or error behavior, but the added context is substantial.

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 four sentences and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The following sentences add useful operational and legal context without excessive verbosity, though the LGPD sentence could be considered slightly tangential.

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 download-like tool, the description covers purpose, access model, data source, and legal responsibility. However, with no output schema and zero parameter descriptions, the lack of details about return format, optional credential parameters, and potential failure modes leaves meaningful gaps.

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 should compensate for all six parameters. It only clarifies the two required params ('nire' and 'registro') while leaving login_cpf, login_senha, pkcs12_cert, and pkcs12_pass unexplained. The phrase 'sem credenciais' is also ambiguous given the optional credential-like 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 action ('Baixa um documento arquivado'), the resource ('documento arquivado de uma empresa na JUCESP'), and the key identifiers ('NIRE e do número de registro'). This is specific and distinct from the sibling tools, which are mostly authentication/platform utilities.

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 usage context: downloads a specific archived company document from JUCESP given NIRE and registration number. It also clarifies access conditions ('sem credenciais', 'pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago') and the legal context, though it does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives.

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 discloses important behaviors: writes require workspace owner/admin, invoke works even when the MCP is not installed and runs one-off without bloating the tool list, and returns connect or checkout links when credentials/wallet are insufficient. These insights go beyond the annotations, which only indicate openWorldHint=true and no read-only/destructive hints, providing meaningful operational context.

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 a complex tool with 14 actions. Every sentence adds value, but it is presented as one continuous block, lacking paragraph breaks or bullet points for quick scanning. This reduces structural clarity, though it is justified given the tool's scope.

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 high complexity (23 params, no output schema), the description lacks specific details on per-action return formats, required parameters for each action, and error handling. It mentions some outputs (connect link, checkout link, shareable prompt link) but does not systematically cover all actions, leaving gaps for an agent to discover.

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 key parameters action, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments through the core flow, and details prompt-related parameters like prompt_vars and prompt_slug in the prompt library section. However, not all 23 parameters are addressed (e.g., cancel_reason, tier_slug, request_name), leaving some gap for an agent to infer.

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' and explains it is both a catalog and a way to run MCP/tools. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on discovery and execution, covering capability requests like 'find an MCP that does X' and 'is there a tool for Y', which is unique among the listed siblings.

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 usage guidance: 'Core flow: action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns one MCP's full profile... → invoke RUNS that tool.' It also contrasts invoke vs install: 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use.' It mentions list_tools for current callable tools, and covers billing and reporting actions, giving clear when-to-use context.

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?

While annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true) already inform about side effects, the description adds useful context about the `conversation` parameter for reproduction. However, it doesn't elaborate on any other behavioral aspects like rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 extremely concise—two sentences—and front-loads the core purpose. No fluff or repetition; every word 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 low complexity (3 flat parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but could be more complete. It doesn't mention what happens after reporting (e.g., response format, error handling) or clarify that 'conversation' must be a JSON-encoded string, which the schema implies by default. Still, it covers the primary use case sufficiently for a tool of this 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'conversation' parameter by explaining its purpose for reproduction. Yet it leaves 'message' and 'context' undocumented, failing to fully compensate 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 clearly states its purpose: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This is a specific verb+resource and differentiates it from sibling tools like 'show_version' or 'connect', which have 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 description implies when to use it (to report issues/feedback) but provides no explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternatives. 'Include the conversation array' offers a hint of usage context but doesn't outline scenarios where this tool should be avoided.

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 well covered. The description adds 'current' and specifies the resource being shown, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as output format or possible errors.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail. It fully states the tool's action in minimal 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 the zero-parameter input and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete for a simple version-inspection tool. It names the exact output domain (platform and adapter versions), though it omits exact return format or example 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 and an empty input schema, so there is no parameter ambiguity to clarify. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because nothing additional 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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), clearly indicating what the tool does. It is distinct from most siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly general 'toolkit_info' 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 usage context is implied: use when you need to check version information. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives, but for a zero-parameter informational tool, the purpose itself is mostly 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 declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the specific information returned, such as MCP connections and account details, without contradicting 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 a single, concise sentence that directly states what the tool returns without unnecessary words or repetition.

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 status tool with no parameters, the description fully captures what the tool does and what information it returns. It is complete and self-explanatory.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it provides sufficient detail about the output for a parameterless tool.

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: returning the current toolkit state, including installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like authenticate and 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, it is a read-only status tool, and the purpose is straightforward, so usage is inferred rather than explicitly guided.

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