Certidão MPF

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

Adds useful context about permanent, non-expiring connections vs session-only logins, and the two calling patterns. Annotations already declare idempotent and non-destructive, and the description does not contradict them. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like token revocation or exact response behavior.

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 moderately concise, using a 'Best' vs 'Or' structure to clearly separate options. It is a bit dense and the opening phrase 'MCP.AI for IDE agents' could be clearer, but every sentence adds necessary information.

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 medium complexity (two login modes), the description covers both flows well, including the exact call format and configuration guidance. However, it does not describe the return value or error handling, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains the single 'token' parameter, showing exactly how to pass it and the behavioral difference when omitted. This compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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: to authenticate with MCP.AI for IDE agents via browser login and token, with explicit instructions for retrieving a link or passing a JWT. It identifies the resource and action, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'connect' 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?

Provides detailed guidance on when to use which mode: permanent configuration via header vs session-only token, and clarifies that calling with no args returns a link. This is strong usage instruction, though it lacks an explicit 'when not to use this tool' or comparison to 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 adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations by explaining the two response states (all connected vs missing credentials) and their fields. However, it does not fully elaborate on the meaning of pending[] or per-install URLs.

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 followed by conditional behavior. Every sentence earns its place, with 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 description covers the two main cases (all connected vs missing credentials) but leaves partial connection states ambiguous. It also does not explain what pending[] contains or how per-install URLs are structured, which may be needed for full understanding.

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 parameters and 100% coverage, so there is nothing to add. The baseline of 4 applies as the description correctly handles the absence of parameters without inventing unnecessary input 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate by specifying response behavior (authenticated:true vs connect_url) rather than just repeating the name.

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 (checking connection status) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like authenticate or show_version. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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 reveals critical behaviors not present in the annotations: invoke runs even when MCP is not installed without bloating the tool list, returns connect/checkout links requiring user action and retry, install/subscribe/cancel require workspace owner/admin, and search/describe flag installation status. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true, etc.).

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 dense and informative but organized as one long paragraph without bullet points or section breaks. It contains some wordy phrases and tangential details, making it harder to scan, though every sentence does add 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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers the two major functional areas (MCP marketplace and prompt library), permission requirements, edge cases like credentials and wallet top-up, and the invoke-vs-install distinction. It omits return value formats and pagination behavior for list operations, but overall it is fairly complete for a tool of this complexity.

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% and the description compensates for the main action parameter by explaining each action and the role of mcp_id/tool_id in the flow. However, most of the 23 parameters (limit, arguments, immediate, prompt_body, conversation, etc.) are not explained at all, 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 is the official mcp.ai marketplace catalog and runner for MCPs/tools, plus a prompt library. It gives a specific scope and flow, but the tool is multi-purpose and doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like report_bug or toolkit_info, which could cause minor 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: prefer invoke for one-off use, use install for permanent toolkit addition, says list_tools shows what is callable right now, and covers permissions (owner/admin for writes) and follow-up flows for credential/payment links. This goes beyond vague heuristics and directly supports correct tool selection across actions.

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 the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses that access is credential-free, payment is via prepaid credits, and the data comes from official public sources. It also adds LGPD compliance context about data controllership, which is useful behavioral and legal-accountability information not captured by 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 core purpose. The second and third sentences add operational and legal context that earns their place, but the LGPD sentence could be seen as slightly tangential for tool selection. Overall, there is no fluff and it remains efficient.

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 access type, cost model, and data publicness, providing a reasonable operational picture. However, it omits details about the 'completo' parameter and does not describe the output/return format. Given the absence of an output schema and the low parameter coverage, this leaves notable gaps for an agent using 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter documentation, but it only references 'CPF ou CNPJ' as inputs. It does not explain the required presence of both Cpf and Cnpj, nor does it describe the optional 'completo' boolean parameter, leaving users uncertain about its meaning and potential effects.

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 begins with 'Emite a certidão negativa do Ministério Público Federal para uma pessoa ou empresa a partir do CPF ou CNPJ', which clearly states the verb (emite), the resource (certidão negativa do MPF), and the input identifiers (CPF/CNPJ). This distinguishes it from unrelated siblings like authenticate or marketplace.

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 specifies that the tool is hosted on the platform, requires no credentials, and is billed per query using prepaid credits, giving clear operational context. It also notes the data is public and not private, which helps clarify appropriate use. No explicit alternative tool is mentioned, but none of the siblings serve a similar function.

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 and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds a useful behavioral note about including the conversation array for reproduction, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like what happens after submission or any side effects beyond the annotation. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add the key parameter instruction. No redundant words or repetition of structured data.

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 reporting tool with good annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description covers the essential use case and a critical parameter. It lacks explicit mention of what happens after reporting (e.g., ticket creation), but given no output schema and the tool's simplicity, it is sufficiently 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% description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly explains the 'conversation' parameter ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'), but does not mention 'message' or 'context' by name. However, the overall purpose makes 'message' obvious, and 'context' is optional with a default. It partially compensates for the schema gap.

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.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are about authentication, 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 clearly indicates when to use the tool (for reporting bugs, missing features, or feedback) and provides an instruction on including the conversation array for reproduction. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous given the sibling set.

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, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., whether it performs network calls or requires authentication), which is acceptable for this simple tool but doesn't exceed the annotation coverage.

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, focused sentence: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and object.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description fully captures the purpose and return value (versions). There are no missing pieces or hidden complexities, making it complete in context.

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% by default. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. No additional parameter semantics are required.

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' with a clear resource: 'current MCP platform and adapter versions'. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or marketplace, which serve completely 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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when you need version information) without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions. Given the tool's simple diagnostic nature, this implicit context is sufficient, earning a 4 rather than a 5 which would require explicit when-not-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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the returned information (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits or auth requirements. 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, well-structured sentence that lists the key outputs without any extraneous wording. Every phrase adds value, making it highly efficient.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. The read-only behavior is implicitly clear from 'Returns' and explicitly confirmed by annotations, so the information is complete for this informational 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 the description has nothing to add beyond the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because no parameter explanation is needed; the description's focus on the return payload is sufficient.

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: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool count). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it well from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, 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 provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate (whenever you need an overview of toolkit state), but it does not explicitly mention exclusions or direct alternatives. Given the sibling tools serve clearly different purposes, the context is sufficient without needing explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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