JUCESP: Ficha Cadastral Completa

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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond the annotations: no-args returns a login link, providing a token gives session-only authentication, and the config header yields a permanent connection. It also identifies the token as a JWT. It does not disclose token expiry, error handling, or whether pasted tokens are persisted, but the main modes are transparent.

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 three sentences and each adds substantial value: audience context, recommended permanent setup, and the two call modes. The opening phrase 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)' is slightly verbose, but overall the structure is efficient and front-loaded.

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 optional-token authentication tool, the description covers the main flows well. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not state what a successful token call returns, what errors may occur, or whether the generated link expires. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent invoking the 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?

The schema provides only 'token' as an untyped optional string with zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does explain that token is a JWT, optional, and used when the user pastes it, while omitting it produces the login link. This is helpful, though it stops short of explaining token validation or failure behavior.

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 an authentication mechanism: it instructs the user to log in, copy the access token, and then either configure it as a header or pass it as a JWT. It goes beyond the name by specifying the resource and two invocation modes. However, it does not crisply distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'connect' or provide a single-sentence function statement.

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 explicitly explains when to call with no arguments ('with no args to get the link') and when to pass a token ('call with { token: "<jwt>" } after the user pastes'). It also recommends the permanent config-header route over the session-only paste route. It lacks explicit mention of when not to use the tool or comparison with alternate tools like 'connect'.

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 behavior, and the description adds useful conditional response details: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. It does not describe partial-connection behavior, but the added context is meaningful.

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 compact sentences front-load the core purpose and immediately provide conditional behavior. No filler, redundancies, or unnecessary caveats.

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, no-parameter, read-only tool with informative annotations and no output schema. The description sufficiently covers what is returned in the main scenarios, making it complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so the description has no obligation to explain parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' The conditional behaviors ('all providers connected' vs. 'credentials are missing') clarify what the tool does and distinguish it from the sibling 'authenticate' 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?

Clear context is provided: this is the tool to check connection status and retrieve auth URLs when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use is strongly implied by the behavior described.

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 context about official data sources, non-confidentiality, and LGPD responsibility. However, the claim 'sem credenciais' is ambiguous given the credential-related parameters in the schema, and no rate limits or response behavior are disclosed.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then access/cost, then legal context. It is concise and contains no filler, though the LGPD sentence is somewhat tangential to tool invocation.

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?

It covers purpose, data source, cost, and legal responsibility, and implies return content (registro, situação, histórico). However, with no output schema and 7 parameters, the lack of response-shape details and the unaddressed credential parameters leave 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 must compensate. It maps cnpj, nire, and name to the stated search identifiers, but it completely ignores login_cpf, login_senha, pkcs12_cert, and pkcs12_pass, leaving 4 of 7 parameters unexplained. The 'sem credenciais' statement also conflicts with the presence of these credential fields.

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 a specific query operation: retrieving a complete JUCESP company registration record, including status and history, by CNPJ, NIRE, or name. This distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling tools and states the resource and scope precisely.

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 provides clear operational context: the tool is platform-hosted, requires no credentials, and is paid per query with prepaid credit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so the context is sufficient for an agent to know when this tool applies.

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?

Despite sparse annotations (only flags not readOnly etc.), the description richly discloses behaviors: invoke runs without installing, returns auth/payment links, writes require owner/admin, search/describe flag installation status, and the prompt library is distinct. It goes well beyond the structured annotations to explain edge cases and side effects.

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-structured and front-loaded with the core concept. It covers many aspects without being redundant. It's appropriate given the tool's complexity.

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 main workflows, auth/payment implications, and permissions, but some parameters and edge cases (e.g., resume, report_bug specifics) are not elaborated. Still, for a tool of this complexity, it's fairly 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?

The schema has 0% coverage; the description explains the high-level flow and mentions key parameters indirectly (e.g., action, tool_id, arguments) but doesn't systematically map each of the 23 parameters. However, the core parameters are covered through the explanation of actions15-7, and the description compensates by explaining the meaning of actions. Still, many parameters like prompt_body, tier_slug, etc. are not explicitly described, leaving some ambiguity.

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's the mcp.ai marketplace catalog and execution engine. It enumerates the core actions (search, describe, invoke, install) and differentiates from siblings like authenticate or toolkit_info. The description is very specific about what the tool does and its scope, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 guidance on when to use invoke vs install, when to use search/describe vs list_tools, and mentions alternatives like request_mcp. It also clarifies permissions for writes and describes the flow of handling auth/payment links, which guides action selection.

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 idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's burden is lowered. It adds the useful behavioral instruction to include the conversation array for reproduction, but doesn't reveal what happens after submission (e.g., ticket creation, response) or any prerequisites.

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 that directly conveys the purpose and key usage note. Every word serves a purpose and there is no redundant 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?

For a simple feedback tool, the description covers the main purpose and reproductions, but it leaves the required message and optional context undefined, and misdescribes the conversation type. The lack of output-schema documentation is not covered either, though it may not be critical.

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 compensate, but it only mentions the conversation parameter and calls it an 'array' while the schema defines it as a string (default '[]'). The required message parameter and optional context parameter are not 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 states 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback', clearly defining the tool's action and accepted inputs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace, none of which handle feedback.

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?

There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives specified. However, the description clearly implies the tool is the feedback/reporting channel given the absence of other relevant siblings, and it instructs to include conversation for reproduction.

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, covering safety. The description adds value by specifying exactly what the tool returns (platform and adapter versions). This contextual information is beyond what annotations provide, so a 4 is justified.

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, clear sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place. Completely concise.

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, read-only informational tool with comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what to expect without needing to explain return values (no output schema) or side effects (non-destructive). The simplicity is appropriate.

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 does not need to explain parameters because there are none. It fully covers the tool's purpose without any parameter-related information, making it 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 tool's purpose: showing current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb ('show') and a specific resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect. No ambiguity.

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 when to use this tool (whenever you need version information) and is self-explanatory. There are no related alternatives among siblings, so explicit exclusions are not necessary. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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 safety profile is clear. The description adds value by detailing what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts), which goes beyond the sparse 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that lists all key output components without wasted words. Perfectly concise 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no params, no output schema), the description fully covers its behavior and return content. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke without ambiguity. The only minor gap is lack of explicit mention of whether the state is live/fresh, but that's not required for this simple info 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?

The tool has zero parameters. According to the rubric, with 0 params the baseline is 4. The description adds no param info but none is needed. This is a valid score.

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 a specific action (returns toolkit state) and specifies the exact content (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like connect or authenticate by focusing on informational retrieval.

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 as a state-checking tool, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives. However, given its clearly informational nature and the sibling list, the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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