MPT ES: Certidão Negativa de Feitos

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false), the description adds important behavioral context: the distinction between permanent non-expiring connections and session-only logins, and that no-args returns a link. This meaningfully enriches the annotation-only signal without contradicting it.

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?

Three focused sentences effectively cover purpose, best-practice configuration, and invocation alternatives. The description is front-loaded with the key action and avoids fluff 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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides complete invocation context: what to do with a token, how to get a link, and the permanent vs session distinction. No critical behavioral gaps remain.

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 single optional token parameter: it should be a pasted JWT for session login, and its absence triggers link generation. This gives the agent actionable semantics beyond the bare schema.

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: authenticate to MCP.AI for IDE agents by producing a browser login link or accepting a pasted JWT token. It goes beyond the name by specifying the exact resource and workflow, and it is clearly distinct from sibling tools like connect or report_bug.

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 usage guidance: add the token as a permanent Authorization header in config, or pass { token } for a session-only login, or call with no args to get the login link. This tells the agent exactly when to use which mode, including a recommended best practice.

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 detail beyond the readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations. It explains conditional responses (connected vs. missing credentials) and what fields are returned, providing clarity on tool 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core function. No unnecessary words, direct and 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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior—what happens when all providers are connected and when credentials are missing. It sufficiently fulfills user expectations for a status-checking 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, making schema coverage trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies for tools with no inputs.

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: returning connection status and URLs. It uses a specific verb ('returns') and describes the resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by focusing on status checking rather than authentication 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 implies when to use the tool (to check connection status) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Given sibling tools like 'authenticate', a more explicit contrast would improve guidance, but the context is clear enough.

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 annotations being minimal (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true), the description discloses important behaviors: invoke runs tools without installing them, writes require workspace owner/admin, credential gaps produce connect links, and payment gaps produce checkout links. This goes well beyond the annotations and provides critical operational context.

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 well-organized with a core-flow breakdown, a KEY callout, and a separate prompt-library section. It is long, but the tool is a multi-action dispatcher with 14 actions, so the length is largely justified. Minor formatting improvements could help scannability.

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 workflow, auth requirements, billing behavior, install-vs-invoke semantics, and the prompt library. It does not mention the 'resume' action or some action-specific parameters, and there is no output schema to clarify return shapes, leaving minor gaps for a tool this complex.

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 carries the burden. It explains the action enum values and the roles of key parameters like tool_id, mcp_id, prompt_vars, and prompt_slug. However, with 23 parameters, several remain unexplained (limit, query, immediate, tier_slug, conversation, cancel_reason, etc.), though many are inferable from names.

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 the official mcp.ai marketplace and explains its dual role: discovering/describing MCPs and running them. It names the core flow (search → describe → invoke) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by covering marketplace-specific actions like install, subscribe, and prompt-library operations.

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 when-to-use guidance: prefer invoke for one-off use, use install only for permanent toolkit additions, use list_tools for currently callable tools, and use request_mcp when nothing fits. It also explains when invoke returns connect/checkout links and how to proceed, which is actionable routing 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 only indicate readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds essential traits: pay-per-query cost, no platform credentials needed, data is not confidential, and LGPD compliance responsibilities. This goes beyond the annotations by disclosing commercial and legal behavior, significantly aiding the agent's decision-making.

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 at three sentences, front-loading the purpose then covering deployment and privacy in sequence. Every sentence adds value, though it is slightly dense with LGPD details that might be secondary. 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?

For a simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, authentication, data sensitivity, and legal responsibility. Gaps remain regarding parameter usage rules and response format, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and the annotations' coverage.

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 and no parameter explanations in the text, the description fails to clarify the 'cpf' and 'cnpj' fields beyond their names. Although these are standard Brazilian tax identifiers, the description offers no conditions (e.g., at least one required, formatting) and does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 'consulta' (query) of 'Certidão Negativa de Feitos' from an official source, using specific verb+resource. It distinguishes the tool from its generic siblings (e.g., connect, show_version) by naming the exact legal document and official nature. No ambiguity in what it does.

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 clear context: requires prepaid credit, runs on the platform without separate credentials, and covers official Brazilian sources. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or directly compare with alternatives, though siblings are unrelated. The guidance is implied rather than exclusionary, missing a full 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?

The description does not add significant behavioral details beyond the annotations. It implies sending feedback but does not disclose idempotency or side effects; annotations already cover safety (idempotent true, destructive false). The description adds no extra behavioral context.

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 with no redundant information. It directly conveys the purpose and the key input requirement without unnecessary elaboration.

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, the description provides adequate context to use it correctly, including the explicit instruction about the conversation array. It does not require explanation of output since no output schema is present, and the purpose is clear enough.

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 explicitly explains the 'conversation' parameter ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction') and implicitly clarifies 'message' via 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback'. However, it leaves 'context' undefined, so coverage is partial.

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: reporting a bug, missing feature, or sending feedback. It uses a specific verb 'Report' with a clear resource, and the instruction to include conversation distinguishes it 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 provides a specific guideline to include the conversation array for reproduction, which is a direct usage instruction. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or mention when not to use it, so it is slightly lacking in that regard.

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 safety is clear. The description adds that it shows versions, but no additional behavioral details like output format or side effects. Since annotations cover the main behavioral traits, a 3 is appropriate as the description provides minimal extra context beyond what is already declared.

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 one short sentence with zero waste. It front-loads purpose clearly and nothing else. Perfectly 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?

Given the simple tool with no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is sufficient. It tells the agent exactly what it does. The only minor gap is not specifying what the returned information includes (e.g., raw text or JSON), but without an output schema, the description could be slightly more explicit. However, for a version tool, this is adequate. Score 4.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description does not need to explain parameters because there are none. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary param info. This 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?

The description clearly states what the tool does: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' The verb 'Show' is specific and the resource (versions) is identified. It distinguishes itself from siblings which include authentication, connection, marketplace, etc. The title 'Show Version' reinforces it. 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 tool is self-explanatory and typically used for diagnostics. The description does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, but given it's a version query tool, the context is clear. No exclusions or alternatives needed. However, it could have mentioned that it's useful for checking compatibility, but that's a minor gap. Score 4 for clarity without explicit guidelines.

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 valuable context about what the return value contains (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, etc.). No contradictions, and the added detail goes beyond annotation basics.

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 conveys all essential information without superfluous words. Every clause adds specificity and depth, 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 simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what information it returns. It could mention the return format, but the listed components are sufficient for an agent to interpret the response.

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 has no properties, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline of 4 applies as the description doesn't need to add parameter 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 purpose: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and specifies the exact components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which are action-oriented.

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 makes it obvious this is for retrieving state information, and sibling tools are action-focused, so context is clear. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or alternatives, just implies that it's for informational queries.

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