MPT PE: Certidão Negativa de Feitos

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

The description explains the authentication flow (browser login, token copy, config header vs session token) and indicates persistence differences. Annotations already note idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds context about permanent vs session tokens 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?

Three concise sentences convey the purpose, the optimal method, and the alternative session method, all front-loaded. Every sentence adds value with 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?

With a simple schema (1 optional param, no output schema), the description fully covers how to authenticate, including permanent and session variants. It is complete for a low-complexity tool; no additional details are necessary.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the 'token' parameter meaning (JWT for session login) and the no-argument case (yielding a link). It gives practical semantics beyond the bare schema, covering both usage scenarios.

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 authenticates for MCP.AI IDE agents, specifying the verb 'log in' and the resource 'MCP.AI'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' or 'marketplace' by focusing solely on authentication, making its 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?

It provides clear instructions for two usage modes: adding a permanent header to config or passing a token for session-only login, and explains calling with no args to get a link. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the context makes it obvious this is for authentication.

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 indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description is consistent and adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., side effects, auth needs, rate limits), which is acceptable given 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 (two sentences) and well-structured, starting with the main purpose and then detailing conditional output. No 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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the key output states (authenticated vs. pending/connect_url) and provides enough context for a straightforward connection-status check.

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 there is nothing to explain. The description correctly omits parameter details, and the schema coverage is effectively complete.

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 function: returns connection status and URLs. The description is specific and distinguishes from other tools like authenticate or show_version by focusing on connection state.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit. The description explains what the tool returns under different conditions but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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 substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: invoke works even when the MCP is not installed, returns connect/checkout links when needed, and avoids bloating the tool list. It also discloses that writes require workspace owner/admin and that prompt links open without login. No contradiction with 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 long but densely packed with necessary information for a 14-action tool. It is well structured: definition, core flow, key invoke/install distinction, permissions, and prompt library. Every sentence earns its place and there is no 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?

For a complex tool with no output schema, the description covers core flows, auth/billing behavior, install vs invoke semantics, permissions, and the prompt library. Gaps remain around some actions (resume, immediate, tier_slug) and return shapes for search/list_tools, but overall it is highly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% with 23 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the action enum and gives meaning to tool_id, mcp_id, arguments, and prompt_vars through the core flow, but many parameters such as immediate, tier_slug, conversation, prompt_targets, cancel_reason, and request_details remain unexplained. It adds useful semantic context but does not fully cover the parameter surface.

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 defines the marketplace as the in-platform catalog of MCPs/tools and the way to run them, with a concrete core flow: search → describe → invoke. It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning itself as the catalog/execution layer, and it enumerates the specific capability areas it covers.

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 usage guidance: prefer invoke for one-off use, use install only for permanent toolkit additions, list_tools shows what is callable right now, and request_mcp is for when nothing fits. It also explains when subscribe/cancel and the prompt-library actions are appropriate, making alternatives within the tool clear.

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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial extra context: 'Hospedado pela plataforma, sem credenciais da plataforma, pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago' (hosted by platform, no platform credentials, pay per query) and 'não é dado sigiloso' (not confidential data), along with LGPD responsibilities. This goes beyond annotations and clarifies commercial and privacy implications.

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 compact but contains redundancy, e.g., 'consulta em fonte oficial' and later 'Consulta informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros' repeat the same idea. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds payment and compliance details, but could be streamlined without losing meaning.

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 two-parameter tool with read-only annotations, the description provides enough context for basic usage, including payment model and data sensitivity. However, it fails to describe parameter semantics (which ID to provide, whether both can be used) and lacks any output expectations, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke reliably without additional inference.

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 defines 'cpf' and 'cnpj' as string parameters with zero schema description coverage. The description does not explain these parameters at all, leaving the agent uncertain about how to populate them or whether one is required. With 0% coverage and no compensatory description, this is a critical 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 function: 'MPT PE: Certidão Negativa de Feitos, consulta em fonte oficial' – it queries official negative certificates from Brazilian sources. This specific verb and resource effectively differentiate it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which are generic platform 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 provides context about the query being from official sources and paid via prepaid credit, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to. There is no mention of use cases like checking a specific CPF/CNPJ or exclusions, so guidance is 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint false and idempotentHint true, indicating it is a mutating but idempotent call. The description adds only a hint about including conversation data for reproduction, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or any limitations beyond what annotations convey. No contradiction with annotations, but minimal additional 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 sentences: the first states purpose, the second gives a specific usage hint. Every word earns its place, no redundancy, and it is well-structured.

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 has 3 parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose and one parameter (conversation), but leaves 'context' and return behavior unexplained. Given the low schema coverage, more detail would be helpful, but the tool is simple and the description is adequate for a basic reporting action.

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 tool description must explain all parameters. It explains 'conversation' (the array with recent messages) and implicitly suggests 'message' holds the bug content, but leaves 'context' undefined. The description adds some meaning but does not compensate fully 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 the tool's purpose: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This is a specific verb (report) with clear resource categories, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like authenticate or connect that 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 implies when to use the tool by defining its purpose, and adds a concrete instruction: 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or scenarios where this tool should not be used, but siblings are unrelated, so the context is sufficient.

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, non-mutating operation. The description adds the specific scope (platform and adapter versions) but does not disclose any other behavioral traits, such as whether it performs network calls or comes from cached data. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Show') and the exact information provided, making it highly concise 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety), the description is sufficient. It clearly states what the tool returns (versions) and does not need to elaborate on return structure since there is no output schema. It could mention if it requires authentication, but the sibling 'authenticate' suggests that might be handled separately.

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 does not need to explain parameter specifics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly implies there are no inputs needed, matching the schema's empty properties.

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: showing the current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb 'Show' and identifies the exact resources (platform and adapter versions), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'toolkit_info' that likely provide broader information.

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 (when you need version information), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Given the simplicity of the tool and no obvious alternatives, this is acceptable but not fully 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?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, making the non-destructive, read-only nature clear. The description adds specific details about what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), providing 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 description is a single, concise sentence that packs in all relevant information without any waste. It is front-loaded with the main action and then details the returned 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 no-parameter, read-only toolkit status tool with strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It clearly lists the scope of returned information. It does not mention output format or pagination, but given there's no output schema and the tool is simple, this is a minor 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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (essentially an empty schema). The description fully explains what the tool does without needing to elaborate on parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate given zero 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 clearly states what the tool does: returns current toolkit state, listing installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. It distinguishes from siblings like authenticate, connect, and 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 implies usage as a status/inspection tool, and its read-only nature is reinforced by annotations. It doesn't explicitly discuss when not to use or alternatives, but for a status tool with no parameters, this is less critical.

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