MPT MS: Certidão Negativa de Feitos

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

Beyond the annotations, it adds useful context: the config-header path is permanent/non-expiring while this tool call is session-only, and the tool returns encourages a login link when called without args. It does not fully describe side effects or failure behaviors, but given the idempotent and non-destructive annotations, the description covers the important traits.

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 relevant; every sentence provides a needed piece of information. It is slightly stream-of-consciousness and mixes user-facing config advice with tool call instructions, but it remains understandable and well within acceptable length.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational details: when to revisit the token, when to call with no args, and how to interpret the session-only vs permanent setup. It lacks a formal description of the result/response object, but that is less critical here because the expected outcome is a link or session.

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 is nearly empty, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains that the optional 'token' is a JWT supplied by the user and demonstrates the exact call shape `{ token: '<jwt>' }` as well as the no-args alternative. This is enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly despite the 0% schema coverage.

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 explains that this tool handles authentication for MCP.AI IDE agents, including both the no-arg flow to retrieve a login link and the token flow for session-only login. It is specific about the login action, though it never explicitly says 'authenticate' and could more cleanly distinguish itself from sibling tools like '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?

It gives clear guidance on two invocation modes: pass { token: '<jwt>' } after the user pastes a token, or call with no arguments to get the link. It also contrasts the session-only approach with the more permanent config-based header approach, which helps the agent know when tool-based authentication is appropriate.

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 safe-read nature is covered. The description adds behavioral details: what is returned when all providers are connected vs. when credentials are missing, and includes URLs. It does not explain formatting or pagination (though output schema absent), but given the annotations, the description provides enough additional context to warrant a 3.

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 every sentence earns its place. 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only status tool, the description is fairly complete: it explains the two main states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and what is returned. It could mention that it may return partial connectivity when some providers are connected, but the description already says 'per-install URLs' which suggests that. Given that there is no output schema, it covers the essential return cases. A 4 is justified.

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 parameter semantics dimension is less demanding. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to describe parameter details, and it provides context about the kind of data returned. No parameter information is needed because there are none.

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 that the tool returns connection status and URLs, and provides details on what it returns in different states. It distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate (which likely initiates auth) and show_version (which shows version info). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so a 4 is appropriate.

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: call this to check connection status before other operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives. It does note that when credentials are missing, it returns connect_url for the toolkit, which hints at a next step, but it lacks explicit 'use this instead of X' or 'do not use when Y'.

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 sparse annotations, the description discloses auth requirements (writes require workspace owner/admin), conditional behaviors (invoke returns connect/checkout links when credentials or payment are missing), and side-effect semantics (install makes an MCP permanent; invoke is one-off and does not bloat the tool list). No contradiction with 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 front-loaded with the purpose and core flow, and every sentence adds operational value, but the single dense paragraph with many embedded clauses is harder to scan than a structured breakdown would be.

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 14-action, 23-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main flows, return-link behaviors, and permission requirements quite well. It is not exhaustive—resume, immediate, and several prompt/cancel parameters go unexplained—but it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the primary actions correctly.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it does explain the central action/tool_id flow and the role of prompt_vars. However, many of the 23 parameters (immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, prompt_targets, request_details, conversation, etc.) are left to their names, so the description only partially compensates for the schema's lack of parameter 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 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 the action families (search/describe/invoke, install, list_tools, billing, prompt library), making the tool's scope unmistakable and distinguishing it 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?

Explicitly prescribes a core flow (search → describe → invoke), states when to prefer invoke over install ('prefer invoke for a single/occasional use'), and identifies list_tools as the way to see what is callable right now. It also names alternatives for unsupported needs (request_mcp) and feedback (report_bug).

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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it is hosted by the platform, requires prepaid credits, and client is data controller under LGPD. It does not contradict annotations, but it doesn't detail response format or potential delays/costs beyond prepaid credit.

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?

Description is a single, dense paragraph, front-loaded with specific purpose and key operational details. All sentences provide relevant info, though it could be structured with bullet points for better readability.

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 it's a simple query tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, data source, payment, and legal context. However, it lacks details like whether both CPF and CNPJ are accepted simultaneously, and what the response contains.

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 a 'cpf' and 'cnpj' parameter, but description does not mention them explicitly. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate, but only states CPF or CNPJ in the context. It doesn't explain whether one is required or how they are used together.

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 queries official Brazilian sources for negative certificates of court records (Certidão Negativa de Feitos) using CPF or CNPJ. It is distinct from siblings, which include authentication, marketplace, and utilities, so purpose is clear.

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 explains that it queries official sources and is available to citizens, but does not explicitly provide when-to-use vs alternatives. Since sibling tools are mostly unrelated, the context is clear but no exclusions or alternative guidance is given.

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, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful context by explaining that the conversation array should be included for reproduction, but it does not disclose what happens after reporting (e.g., dispatch, storage, confirmation).

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, front-loaded sentences convey the tool's purpose and key usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 is simple with three parameters, no output schema, and helpful annotations. The description provides enough to invoke it correctly, though a one-line note about the 'context' parameter would make it fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'conversation' parameter's purpose as a recent-messages array for reproduction, and 'message' is implied as the report content, but the 'context' parameter remains unexplained.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Report' and clearly identifies the resource/action: bug, missing feature, or feedback. It distinguishes itself from unrelated sibling tools by stating its exact purpose.

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 states clear use cases ('bug, missing feature, or send feedback') and gives a practical instruction (include conversation array for reproduction). It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but none of the sibling tools compete with this 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., exact return format or error conditions), but given the annotations, it's sufficient. 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?

A single, direct sentence with no filler. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 with clear purpose and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know. Complexity is minimal, so no additional details are warranted.

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 trivially 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics; baseline 4 applies.

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 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' clearly states the action (show) and the specific resource (platform and adapter versions). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect', leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 context is clear: a user would invoke this when they need version information. There are no explicit exclusions or alternatives mentioned, but since it's a self-contained informational tool with no similar siblings, it doesn't require extensive guidance. The description implicitly communicates when to use it.

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 destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying what information will be returned, which helps set agent expectations for a state inspection call.

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 front-loads the core purpose and then lists the returned data points. There is no redundant or wasted 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?

The tool is simple: no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations. The description fully covers what the tool returns, making it complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description implicitly communicates that no input is required and that the tool returns a full snapshot of toolkit state, which is sufficient given the empty 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and precisely names the resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect, authenticate, 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 implies clear usage context: call this tool when you need an overview of the current toolkit state, including connections and MCP availability. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the state-inspection purpose is evident from the description.

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