Mandados de Prisão (CNJ)

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

It discloses important behavioral traits beyond annotations: the distinction between permanent (config header) and session-only (token paste) modes, and that calling with no args returns a login link. It doesn't mention potential side effects or response format for token calls, but annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so this is sufficient.

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, each adding value: it explains the login flow, recommends the config approach, and details the session alternative. It uses clear formatting with 'Best:' and 'Or' to structure options, and every sentence is 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?

Given no output schema and a relatively simple auth flow, the description adequately covers the process: how to get the token, how to store it, and how to call the tool with or without a token. It doesn't describe the response for token calls, but this is a minor gap for an auth tool where the outcome is implicit.

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 zero parameter descriptions, so the description fully compensates by explaining the 'token' parameter (a JWT to paste) and the special behavior of calling with no args. It specifies the token format and the context in which to provide it, which is essential for correct invocation.

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: authenticating MCP.AI for IDE agents by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It specifies the action (log in), the resource (access token), and the scope (IDE agents like Cursor), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'connect' by focusing on token-based auth.

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 explicit guidance on two usage modes: adding the token to server config for a permanent connection, or pasting it for session-only login. It also explains how to call with no args to get the link. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to alternative tools like 'connect', so it falls short of the 'explicit when-not' criterion.

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, but the description adds valuable behavioral detail: the two possible outcomes (authenticated:true with empty pending[], or connect_url with per-install URLs) and what triggers each. This goes beyond the structured 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, no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, the second clarifies the conditional output. Every word earns its place.

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 is parameterless and has no output schema, the description fully explains the expected return values and conditions. Annotations cover safety, and the description covers behavior completely for this simple 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, so schema provides no parameter semantics. Baseline is 4, and description correctly focuses on output behavior rather than params.

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 returns connection status and URLs, with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('connection status and URLs'). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'authenticate' by describing a status check rather than an 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 on when results differ (all providers connected vs credentials missing), implying it is used to check connection state. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling 'authenticate' is evidently the counterpart for initiating auth.

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/non-destructive, but the description adds valuable context on authentication (no credentials), cost (prepaid credit per query), and legal responsibilities (LGPD, client as data controller). This goes beyond the annotations 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 a moderately sized paragraph that front-loads the main purpose, then adds operational context. Each sentence provides unique information (data source, auth, cost, legal note), so there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, and the description covers purpose, auth, cost, and legal aspects, but it does not explain the return format or the role of all required parameters. It is complete enough for a simple public query tool, but the missing parameter details and response semantics leave some 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 only mentions CPF and name, while there are 6 parameters with 5 required (including NomeMae, NomePai, Alcunha). It does not explain why these additional fields are needed or what 'completo' does, leaving significant gaps for parameter 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 checks for open arrest warrants in the CNJ National Database using CPF and name. It uses a specific verb ('Verifica'), names the resource, and distinguishes itself from the unrelated sibling tools (authenticate, marketplace, etc.).

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 on when to use the tool: to query public arrest warrant data by CPF and name. It also notes that credentials are not needed, it's pay-per-query, and the data is public access, implying it is not for private/confidential data. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions beyond this, so it misses a full when/when-not structure.

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?

Exceeds annotation coverage by explaining behavioral traits: invoke runs even when the MCP is not installed, returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment, install makes tools permanent, and writes require workspace owner/admin. Also clarifies search/describe flag installed status. This adds substantial context beyond the annotations (which only indicate non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive).

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 every sentence carries valuable info, covering core flow, invoke behavior, auth/billing handling, install vs invoke, permissions, and the prompt library. It is structured as a continuous paragraph without bullet points, but the content is dense and appropriately sized for 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?

Given 23 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a thorough overview of the marketplace's capabilities, core flow, pricing/auth interactions, permission requirements, and the prompt library. It explains how invoke handles missing credentials and empty wallets, and how install differs. This is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool effectively.

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 action enum values (search, describe, install, invoke, etc.) and relevant parameters (tool_id, arguments, prompt_slug) within the narrative. However, it does not systematically describe many parameters (limit, query, message, immediate, tier_slug, etc.), leaving gaps for an agent needing precise parameter semantics. It partially compensates but not fully.

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 is the official mcp.ai marketplace, serving as the catalog of every MCP/tool and the way to run them. It details the core flow (search, describe, invoke) and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on discovery and one-off execution. The verb+resource+scope is specific and 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 ('prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'), when to use search vs describe, and when to use request_mcp. It also mentions permission requirements for writes and explains how to handle auth/billing links, giving clear context and 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?

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, readOnly=false, and destructive=false. The description adds that including the conversation array helps reproduction, which is a minor behavioral hint. It does not contradict annotations, but it supplies limited extra context beyond what annotations already convey.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and provide immediate actionable guidance about the conversation parameter. No 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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action but omits details like return value, the exact format of the conversation string, and the effect of the idempotentHint. It is minimally adequate but leaves notable gaps in fully understanding tool behavior.

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 explain parameters. It mentions the 'conversation array' and implies 'message' content, but it does not clarify the structure of 'conversation' (e.g., JSON string), the role of 'context', or the expected content of the 'message' field. This under-specification leaves agents guessing about parameter semantics.

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: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This is a specific verb with a defined resource and scope, and it distinguishes the tool from the listed unrelated 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 implies when to use the tool ('Report a bug...'), but it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or mention alternatives. The instruction to 'include the conversation array' offers usage guidance, but the 'when vs alternatives' aspect remains unspoken.

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 no further behavioral context (e.g., return format, side effects), which is acceptable for such a simple tool but does not exceed the annotations' value.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately understandable.

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 zero-parameter tool whose sole purpose is to show version information, this description is complete. There is no output schema, but the complexity is so low that the description fully covers what the tool does.

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 trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline for 0-param tools is 4.

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 with a specific verb ('show') and resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing solely on version information, 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 gives clear context that the tool is for displaying version information, and there is no ambiguity about when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, which prevents a perfect score.

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 detail on what is returned, but does not disclose additional behaviors like auth requirements or rate limits. It does not contradict 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, clear sentence that efficiently captures the tool's purpose and output without any redundant text.

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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a sufficient overview of the return content. It could have been more explicit about the exact structure of the returned state, but it covers the key 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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 returns toolkit state with specific details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts). It is distinct from siblings like authenticate or connect, which serve 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 this tool is for inspecting toolkit state but gives no explicit 'when to use' or exclusions. It doesn't mention alternatives, though the intended context is clear from the description.

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