MPT SP: Certidão Negativa de Feitos

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reveals that the token is non-expiring if added to config, and that session-only login is temporary. It also mentions the browser interaction requirement. It does not contradict annotations. It doesn't cover potential pitfalls like invalid token handling, but given annotations, it adds reasonable 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 one long sentence but packed with useful info. It is front-loaded with target audience and action. It's a bit verbose in the middle, but every part serves a purpose. It could be split into clearer sentences, but it's appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 that there is no output schema, the description explains what the user will experience: they get a link to log in, or they can paste a token. The tool has one optional param, and the description covers all modes (config, token, no-args). It even addresses the target environment (IDE agents). For a simple auth tool, this is fairly 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 has one optional parameter 'token' with no description. The description explains that 'token' should be a JWT pasted by the user for session-only login, and that no args gets the link. This adds meaning beyond the schema, partially compensating for 0% schema coverage. However, it doesn't specify the token format or what happens when an invalid token is provided, so full semantics are not covered.

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: to authenticate an IDE agent with the server by either obtaining a login link or accepting an access token. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on login/authentication, unlike connect or marketplace. However, it mixes configuration guidance with tool invocation, making it slightly less crisp.

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 explicit usage scenarios: best practice is to add token to config for permanent connection, or paste token for session-only login, or call with no args to get link. It clearly explains when to use each mode and even mentions adding to server config as an alternative, which helps the agent decide when to invoke vs. configure.

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 and idempotentHint, and the description adds specific return values for different states (authenticated, pending[], connect_url). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the hints.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and conditional details added efficiently. Every phrase adds value, 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?

For a stateless read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the main return variations. It could elaborate on the structure of URLs or meaning of 'pending[]', but the simplicity and annotations make this 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters; its focus on return scenarios is appropriate given no input requirement.

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, and specifies conditional outcomes (authenticated:true vs connect_url). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, which initiates connections.

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 mention when to prefer this over siblings like authenticate. It gives situational context (missing credentials vs all connected) but lacks explicit alternatives or 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?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that invoke runs tools without installing them, that writes require workspace owner/admin, that missing credentials return a connect link, that empty wallet returns a checkout link, and that published prompt links open without login. These are significant behavioral traits not visible in the schema or 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 front-loaded with the core identity and then organized by flow, install vs invoke, billing, feedback, and prompt library. It is dense and has minor redundancy around invoke's one-off nature, but every section earns its place for a 14-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, the description covers the main search/describe/invoke flow, permissions, billing, and prompt library, and even describes key return behaviors (connect link, checkout link, shareable slug link). It omits the resume action and several secondary parameters, leaving some gaps for an agent to discover via the schema.

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 and 23 parameters, the description compensates by explaining the action enum values, the mcp_id/tool_id relationship, and prompt-related params (prompt_vars, prompt_slug, prompt_body). However, several parameters (resume, immediate, tier_slug, conversation, cancel_reason, report_context, request_details, prompt_targets) remain unexplained, so it is not fully compensating.

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 core flow (search → describe → invoke) plus prompt library functions. It is broad because it covers 14 actions, and it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like toolkit_info or report_bug, but the resource and main capabilities are unmistakable.

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: prefer invoke for one-off use, use install only for permanent toolkit membership, use list_tools for currently callable tools, and use request_mcp when nothing fits. It also explains the retry flow after connect/checkout links, which is actionable 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: prepaid pay-per-query cost, no credential requirement, official Brazilian sources, non-confidential data, and LGPD responsibilities. No contradiction with annotations 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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence contributes relevant information about cost, authentication, data source, or legal obligations. It is appropriately sized for the tool's low structural complexity.

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 purpose, cost, authentication, data source, and legal context well, but it omits details about the input parameters and the expected return value. Since there is no output schema and no parameter descriptions, those omissions leave meaningful gaps for correct 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?

The schema provides two parameters, cpf and cnpj, with no descriptions and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention either parameter at all, leaving the agent without guidance on which identifier to provide, whether at least one is required, or formatting expectations.

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's purpose: consulting a 'Certidão Negativa de Feitos' from MPT SP through an official source. The verb 'consulta' plus the specific resource and jurisdiction make it unambiguous and distinct from the listed sibling tools.

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 useful usage context: no platform credentials are needed, the operation requires prepaid credit, and it uses official public sources. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough for a single-purpose consultation tool.

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 include readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about including a conversation array for reproduction, which is a behavioral requirement beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose what happens after submission (e.g., no side effects, no data storage details) or whether transmission is secure. Since idempotentHint is true, the description's implication of sending feedback aligns, but there's no contradiction. Transparent enough for a routine reporting tool.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and context. Every word earns its place: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback' and 'Include the conversation array...' No 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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple reporting with 3 params, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and key parameter hint. However, it lacks information on expected response or confirmation, and uses 0% schema coverage. For a simple tool, it's mostly complete but leaves room for clarifying parameter semantics. The presence of a required 'message' and optional 'context' is not explained. Usable but not fully comprehensive.

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%, meaning the description must clarify parameter purpose. It mentions 'conversation array with recent messages' but does not explicitly explain 'message' (the required one) or 'context'. The 'conversation' parameter is given a hint, but 'message' and 'context' lack description. With 3 params and 0% schema coverage, the description insufficiently compensates, leaving agents uncertain about what each parameter should contain.

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 identifies the resource (bug/feature/feedback) and the action (report/send), and is distinguishable from siblings like 'show_version' or 'toolkit_info' by its focus on user feedback. Minor deduction for not explicitly naming distinct verb+resource for each case, but it's specific enough.

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 context ('Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback') but does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't mention when not to use it or direct users to alternative tools like 'connect' or 'authenticate' for other issues. Adequate but vague on decision 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, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond what annotations declare, but since the annotations are rich and the tool is simple (no side effects, no inputs), the description doesn't need to add much. It appropriately states the information returned, which is the main 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately understandable. It is perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, simple read operation), the description is complete. Annotations provide the safety and idempotency context. The description tells the agent exactly what it will get (version information), which is sufficient for invocation. No additional context is needed.

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 coverage is 100% (irrelevant here). With no params, the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics, and the baseline for zero params is 4. The description correctly avoids mentioning any parameters, which 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 the tool's purpose: showing the current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('MCP platform and adapter versions'), which is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'toolkit_info', which might also provide version information, so it misses the top score.

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 diagnostic or informational tool but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so while the purpose is clear, the context for when to prefer this tool over 'toolkit_info' is not addressed. This is a standard minimal guideline, not misleading.

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 well-covered. The description adds the specific content of the state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts), which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether the state is cached, how fresh the data is, or any potential latency, but with strong annotations, 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, well-structured sentence that lists the key components of the toolkit state. It is front-loaded with the main purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then enumerates the details. 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 has no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is quite complete. It explains what the tool returns in sufficient detail for an agent to understand its purpose. It could potentially mention that it's a snapshot or if there are any side effects, but with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, that's covered. The description is adequate for a simple informational 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 0 parameters, so the schema is trivially covered (100%). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the returned state includes, which is more relevant than parameter semantics.

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 the current toolkit state, listing specific details: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is a specific verb+resource (returns toolkit state) and distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which have different purposes.

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 a read-only informational tool for checking the toolkit's current state, which is clear context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but given the sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace), the purpose is distinct enough that usage context is clear.

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