JUCESP: Ficha Cadastral Simplificada

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it notes establishing a permanent non-expiring connection via config, or a session-only login when the token is passed in. It also explains the response behavior for the no-args case ('to get the link'). Annotations are not contradicted, though it does not depth on side effects or error 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?

The description is a single, dense block that front-loads the key action and then lays out two distinct usage paths. Every clause adds relevant operational detail. It is slightly wordy with the 'MCP.AI for IDE agents' extra framing, but it remains informative.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the important workflow: how to obtain the token, how to store it permanently, how to pass it for a session, and how to retrieve the login link. It leaves out any explicit success/failure return details, but for this authentication tool the provided interaction flow is reasonably 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 schema description coverage at 0%, this description carries the full burden of explaining the 'token' parameter. It provides real meaning: it is a JWT access token copied from the browser and used for session-only login via { token: '<jwt>' }. It could add more detail like syntax, expiry behavior, or whether the value is stored, but the core semantic is clear.

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 identifies the tool as authentication for MCP.AI IDE agents, with a concrete flow: log in, copy token, and authenticate via either a permanent header or a session-only token. It uses an active verb ('log in', 'authenticate') and specifies the resource (this server/connection), making it distinct from sibling tools like 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 gives explicit usage context: it explains the recommended permanent setup (add Authorization header) versus the temporary option (paste token as a parameter), plus the no-args call to get the login link. It does not explicitly contrast against sibling tools like connect, but it provides enough situational guidance for the agent to choose the right invocation.

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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context about the two distinct states (all connected vs missing credentials) and the corresponding return structure (authenticated:true vs connect_url). This goes beyond annotations by detailing the conditional behavior 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 extremely concise at two sentences, with essential information front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: it states the primary output and explains conditional behavior. There is no redundant phrasing.

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 schema aquatic and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns and under which conditions. The tool is simple, and the description fully explains the behavior, especially compared to sibling tools.

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 provides no parameter details. The description does not need to explain parameters. It correctly omits any input details, earning the baseline of 4 per the rubric.

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: it returns connection status and URLs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate by focusing on status, not authentication actions. The specifics about conditionally returning URLs based on connection state add clarity.

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 the behavioral context (when providers are connected vs missing credentials) but does not explicitly advise when to use this tool over siblings such as authenticate. Usage is implied for checking connection status, but no direct alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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 indicate read‑only, idempotent, non‑destructive operationches; the description adds further useful information: payment model, lack of credentials, and LGPC responsibility. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not specify response format or error behavior. No contradiction with 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 front‑loaded with the purpose, then states payment and data source. It is not overly long and is 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?

The tool has multiple parameters and no output schema. The description gives the core purpose and cost model but omits clarification about the authentication parameters and the expected response. Since it is a simple query tool the idea is clear, but the missing parameter explanations reduce completeness.

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 clarifies that queries can be made by CNPJ, NIRE, or name, covering three of seven parameters. However, the authentication parameters (login_cpf, login_senha, pkcs12_cert, pkcs12_pass) are not mentioned at all, and the schema provides no descriptions (coverage 0%). The description fails to explain these parameters or whether they are required, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance.

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 this tool retrieves a simplified corporate registration record (ficha cadastral) from JUCESP, specifying the query keys (CNPJ, NIRE, or name). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are unrelated (authentication, marketplace, version 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 explains the general context: hosted by the platform, no credentials required, prepaid credits per query. It also indicates the data source is official Brazilian records. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (though no alternatives exist among siblings) nor when not to use it.

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 annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: 'invoke works even when the MCP is NOT installed', returns a connect link for missing credentials, and a checkout/top-up link for empty wallets. It also states that 'Writes (install/uninstall/subscribe/cancel and the one-off install behind invoke) require workspace owner/admin.' This is rich, actionable context with no contradiction.

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 thorough but long, with multiple paragraphs and many clauses packed into single sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the length reduces clarity and could be structured with bullet points or sub-sections to improve scannability.

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 14 actions, 23 parameters, and no output schema, the description covers the full operational workflow, including auth requirements, one-off vs permanent install, billing/credential handling, and the prompt library. This is exceptionally complete context for an agent to select and invoke this tool 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 23 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but does not systematically explain most parameters. It mentions action names and implies tool_id/arguments for invoke, but leaves many parameters (limit, immediate, prompt_body, tier_slug, cancel_reason, etc.) unexplained, giving the agent insufficient per-parameter guidance.

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 as 'the official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It uses specific verbs like search, describe, invoke, and install, and explicitly maps the core flow, distinguishing this from sibling tools like authenticate or 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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use.' It also explains when to call list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, and request_mcp, and contrasts invoke with install behavior.

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 disclose readonlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no further behavioral context such as whether the feedback is sent to a ticketing system, if it requires authentication, or what happens after submission. Given annotations cover safety traits, the description does not contradict them but also does not enrich the agent's understanding of side effects beyond the purpose.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. No fluff or redundancy. The instruction about conversation is placed immediately after the purpose, making it clear and actionable.

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?

This is a simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the primary action and gives a key usage hint. It misses explaining the 'context' parameter, but given the simplicity and the presence of annotations, the description is mostly sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Minor gaps do not significantly impede 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%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains the 'conversation' parameter: 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction,' which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare string type. However, it does not clarify the 'context' parameter, and 'message' is obvious from the purpose. Partial compensation, not fully comprehensive.

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.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, marketplace, or show_version. The purpose is unambiguous and easily understood.

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 for when to use the tool (reporting bugs, missing features, or feedback) and includes a key usage instruction: 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but given the sibling set, this tool is uniquely for reporting. This is close to ideal but 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide, but it does not contradict them either.

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 immediately states the tool's function with no filler or redundant details.

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 trivial version-information tool with no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does and requires no additional explanation.

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 parameter descriptions are unnecessary. The baseline of 4 for no params is appropriate; the description adds no parameter information because none exists.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or report_bug, which have obviously 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 usage context is clear: use this tool to retrieve version information. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but for a zero-parameter informational tool this is not a significant omission.

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 annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds value by detailing what the returned state includes (MCPs, status, accounts, catalog counts), giving the agent a clear idea of the tool's output even without a formal schema. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists the key outputs in a clear, inline list. There is no fluff, and every word contributes to understanding. It is concise yet information-dense.

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 no-parameter, read-only status tool, the description is complete: it tells the agent exactly what information to expect. It does not cover edge cases like authentication state or error scenarios, but those are not necessary for a basic state query and are not expected given 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?

There are zero parameters in the schema, so the description is not required to explain any. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately avoids adding spurious parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly specifies the resource ('current toolkit state') and its components: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This level of detail effectively distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which target different actions like authentication or connection.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or contrast with sibling tools such as 'show_version' or 'connect'. It simply states what the tool does without any context for decision-making.

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