MPF: Certidão Negativa

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

The description transparently explains the two main behaviors: calling without args returns a login link, and calling with a token authenticates. It aligns with the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive) and does not contradict them, offering clear expectations.

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 verbose and includes extraneous text like 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)' and multiple usage hints. It lacks a clear structure, making it harder to parse the essential information about the tool's 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?

While the two invocation modes are covered, the description omits details about the return value when a token is provided, error handling, or the authentication outcome. Given the simple schema, it is moderately complete but leaves 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?

The token parameter is partially explained: it is described as a JWT and optional, with instructions to paste it. However, the schema lacks a description, and the semantics of what the token does (authentication) are only implicitly conveyed.

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 indicates the tool is for authentication, mentioning login and token usage, but it is phrased as user instructions rather than a clear statement of the tool's function. The purpose is implied but not explicitly stated, reducing 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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'connect' or other sibling tools. It provides detailed invocation steps (with or without token), but lacks guidance on selection criteria or prerequisites.

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 and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by detailing conditional responses (authenticated:true with empty pending vs connect_url when credentials missing) and mentioning multiple providers and per-install URLs, going 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with a clear verb and resource. It uses three short sentences, each adding value—defining the action, the success condition, and the missing-credential condition—without any wasteful wording.

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 read-only tool, the description is complete. It explains the key return values for both possible states (all providers connected vs credentials missing) and includes relevant fields like authenticated, pending, and connect_url. With no output schema, this description sufficiently prepares the agent for expected responses.

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 the schema is fully covered by default. The description appropriately includes no parameter details, matching the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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', which is a specific verb plus resource. It differentiates from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status retrieval rather than initiating authentication.

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 for checking connection status but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'authenticate'. No exclusions or comparisons are provided, leaving the when-to-use context implied rather than explicit.

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 behavioral traits beyond annotations: invoke runs tools without installing them, does not bloat the tool list, returns connect links for missing credentials, returns checkout links for unpaid usage, and requires workspace owner/admin for writes. This is rich additional context that annotations alone do not provide, and it does not contradict any annotation.

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 the tool is genuinely complex with multiple action families and a prompt-library subsystem. It front-loads the core marketplace purpose and workflow, uses clear signals like 'KEY:' and 'Use install only to...' to highlight critical decision points, and nearly every sentence adds distinct information. Some structuring with bullets would improve scannability, but content is dense rather than padded.

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, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description covers the main flows, auth requirements, payment edge cases, install-vs-invoke tradeoffs, and the prompt library thoroughly. It does not exhaustively document every parameter or return shape for every action, but it provides enough operational context for an agent to use the tool effectively and discover missing details through the catalog itself.

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 carries the main semantic burden. It does explain action, tool_id, prompt_vars, prompt_slug, and the action-dependent meaning of many fields, but many parameters such as limit, query, immediate, tier_slug, conversation, message, cancel_reason, and request_details are left without direct explanation. The description partially compensates for the schema gap 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 this is the official mcp.ai marketplace catalog and execution layer, covering both discovery and running of MCP tools. It explicitly maps the main workflow (search → describe → invoke) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming report_bug and explaining the marketplace-specific actions.

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 guidance on when to use invoke vs install ('prefer invoke for a single/occasional use'), how to handle credentials and payments, and what list_tools is for. It also explains the search/describe flow and the prompt-library subactions, so an agent can choose the correct action with clear 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, is paid per query with prepaid credit, and the data is not confidential (same as available to citizens). It also mentions LGPD compliance and data controller responsibilities, which is useful for legal/ethical considerations. 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?

The description is concise, with three sentences covering purpose, hosting/payment, and data/LGPD aspects. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it includes some legal boilerplate that might be less critical for tool invocation, but it is still relevant context. No wasted 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 tool's simplicity (two optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main aspects: what it does, how it's accessed, and legal considerations. However, it lacks details on parameter usage (which one to provide, format) and what the response contains. The annotations cover safety, but the description could be more complete for a tool that requires payment.

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 two parameters (cpf and cnpj) with no descriptions, and the description does not explain them. It mentions 'consulta informação' but does not clarify that either CPF or CNPJ is required, nor does it explain the format or that they are mutually exclusive. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it fails to provide any parameter-level 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 purpose: consulting a negative certificate (Certidão Negativa) from the MPF (Ministério Público Federal) through an official source. It specifies the resource (MPF certificate) and the action (consult). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on this specific certificate type, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 context on when to use the tool: to consult information from official Brazilian sources, with payment via prepaid credit. It implies usage for obtaining a negative certificate but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The sibling tools are mostly unrelated (authentication, marketplace, etc.), so differentiation is less critical, but explicit guidance is lacking.

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 readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description does not clarify side effects (e.g., where the report goes, confirmation). It adds minimal behavioral context 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?

The description is two concise sentences, clearly structured and free of unnecessary detail.

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 lacks information about expected outcome, error handling, or return value. While no output schema exists, the description does not specify what happens after reporting, leaving some ambiguity.

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, and the tool description only mentions the 'conversation' parameter. Parameters 'context' and 'message' are completely unexplained, providing insufficient guidance for correct usage.

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 is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or show_version, which serve different functions.

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 a specific usage hint ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'), but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, since no similar tools exist, the context is implied.

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, and the description's 'Show' aligns perfectly with those. The description adds the specific scope of what is shown (platform and adapter versions), which is useful context 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?

The entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the tool's purpose without any filler or redundant information. Every word contributes 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 tool's simplicity—zero parameters, no output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations—the description is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. There are no hidden behaviors or complex inputs to document.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity to clarify. The schema coverage is 100% by virtue of having an empty properties object, and the description needs no additional parameter-level detail.

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 a clear resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It is distinct from the listed sibling tools, none of which appear to be version-reporting 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 clearly implies the tool is for checking current platform and adapter versions. There are no exclusions or prerequisites needed for a simple informational tool, so the lack of explicit alternatives is not a meaningful gap.

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 indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. The description adds valuable context about the exact content of the return (installed MCPs, status, accounts, tool counts) which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies what 'state' means.

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 sentence that is dense with relevant information, listing all the key components of the returned state. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids any unnecessary 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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It specifies the components of the return value sufficiently, and the annotations cover safety. It could arguably offer more detail on the format, but it is adequate.

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?

Since there are zero parameters, the schema provides no parameter details, and the baseline is 4. The description compensates by clearly stating what the tool returns, effectively covering the absence of 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 states exactly what the tool does: returns the current toolkit state, listing installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is specific and distinct from the sibling tools, which include authentication, connection, market, and reporting functions.

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 is an informational tool to check the state of the toolkit, which is useful before connecting or using other tools. However, no explicit guidance is given about when to use this versus alternatives, though the sibling context makes it clear this is the state-inspection tool.

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