MPT AM e RR: Certidão Negativa de Feitos

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds behavioral context: token can be stored permanently in server config or used for a session-only login. It discloses side effects (setting a token, generating a link) beyond the structured fields, without contradicting 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 dense but not excessively long, packing several instructions into three sentences. It is front-loaded with the action and provides examples inline. Slightly dense due to multiple clauses, but each phrase adds 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 and the sparse schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, both usage modes, the parameter format, and the no-arg case. No output schema is required, so nothing critical is missing.

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 fully compensates by explaining the 'token' parameter as a JWT to paste, and the no-argument behavior to retrieve a login link. This is precisely the kind of parameter semantics the schema fails to provide.

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 via browser login and token. It provides specific actions (log in, copy token, call with token or no args) and differentiates from siblings like 'connect' by focusing on auth token handling.

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 on usage: permanent config vs. session-only, and mentions calling with or without arguments. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, but implies decision-making between permanent and session-based authentication, which is strong 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, and the description adds useful conditional output behavior beyond those annotations: authenticated:true with empty pending[] versus connect_url and per-install URLs for missing credentials. No contradiction exists.

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 concise conditional details. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler 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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety traits, the description adequately explains the primary return variants. It could go slightly further by describing the exact structure of connect_url or suggesting next steps, but it is sufficient for a simple status 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 and 100% schema coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The baseline for zero-parameter tools applies, and the description appropriately focuses on return states instead.

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 says the tool 'Returns connection status and URLs,' and it distinguishes this status-check tool from siblings like authenticate by describing conditional success/failure return states. The verb 'Returns' with a specific resource makes the purpose unambiguous.

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: to check whether providers are connected or to obtain connect_url when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like authenticate, so it misses the explicit exclusion that would earn 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?

It discloses important behaviors beyond annotations: invoke works even when the MCP is not installed, returns connect/checkout links and requires a retry, writes require workspace owner/admin, and install makes tools permanent. This adds operational context that annotations like readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true do not 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?

Though long, the description is densely organized: definition, core flow, key invoke behavior, install vs invoke, remaining actions, then prompt library. Every section earns its place for a 23-parameter multi-action tool.

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 complex multi-action tool with no output schema, it covers the main flows, auth requirements, and prompt library. It omits some action semantics (e.g., resume) and return-value details, but is largely complete for selection and invocation.

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 coverage, the description must compensate, and it does explain the action enum and core flow (tool_id selection, arguments implied). However, it leaves many parameters undocumented (limit, query, mcp_id, immediate, tier_slug, prompt_* fields, cancel_reason, conversation) and does not specify formats like arguments being a JSON string.

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 opens with a clear definition: 'official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It enumerates distinct actions (search, describe, invoke, install, list_tools, etc.) and distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning itself as the catalog and execution layer.

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 says 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT.' It also maps each action to its purpose (report_bug sends feedback, request_mcp asks for a new MCP, list_tools lists callable tools), giving clear when-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?

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it mentions that the tool is paid via prepaid credits, requires no platform credentials, and that the data is not confidential. It also clarifies LGPD responsibilities, enhancing transparency about operational and legal aspects.

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 succinct and well-structured, starting with the core purpose and then providing supplementary details. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, with no unnecessary 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 key aspects: the source (official Brazilian bodies), cost model, data nature, and legal responsibilities. It does not specify output format or error handling, but given the absence of an output schema and the tool's straightforward nature, it 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?

The input schema only lists 'cpf' and 'cnpj' as strings without any descriptions. The tool description does not elaborate on these parameters, leaving their exact meaning and usage entirely to inference from context. No additional semantics are provided.

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: it consults official Brazilian sources for a 'Certidão Negativa de Feitos' (negative certificate). The verb 'consulta' and the specific resource are explicit, and the purpose is unambiguous.

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 provide any guidance on when to use this tool or how it compares to alternative tools. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the usage context entirely unspecified.

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=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds context about reproduction through conversation, but doesn't disclose further behavioral aspects. The description doesn't 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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and has no redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main action and a usage detail. However, it omits explanation of the required 'message' parameter, making it slightly incomplete for a new user.

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 only mentions the conversation parameter ('Include the conversation array'), but does not explain the required 'message' parameter or the optional 'context'. Schema description coverage is 0% and the description compensates only partially, leaving the most important required parameter undocumented.

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 a specific verb and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools that handle authentication, connectivity, 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?

It provides a clear context on when to use the tool (reporting bugs, missing features, feedback) and gives a specific usage hint: 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives but that's not necessary given the clear purpose.

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 readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds no extra behavioral details beyond the core function. Since annotations are present, the bar is lower, but this description provides nothing beyond what is already annotated.

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 and to the point, using a single clear sentence. There is no redundancy or 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description fully captures what the tool does. It clearly states the output (versions) and is complete 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 coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, this yields a baseline of 3. No additional parameter descriptions are needed.

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 is a specific verb (show) and resource (versions), and it distinguishes itself 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but given its simple informational nature, the usage context is fairly obvious. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so it meets the minimum but lacks explicit 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 readOnly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds detail about the returned content, reinforcing the read-only nature without contradictions. It does not mention potential errors or access requirements, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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?

One concise sentence that precisely conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy. No unnecessary words or 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?

The description fully explains what the tool returns, listing the key components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). Given no output schema, this is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's output.

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 no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). No additional parameter semantics needed; baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool's function: returns the current toolkit state, specifying the type of information (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'connect' 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?

Implicitly indicates when to use (when needing an overview of toolkit state) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. However, given its self-explanatory nature, the guidance is adequate.

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