PEP Estendida (Parentescos)

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

Adds behavioral context beyond annotations: explains permanent vs session login, token handling for configuration, and that calling with no args generates a browser link. Annotations already declare idempotent and non-destructive; description is consistent and enriches understanding.

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 somewhat lengthy and rambles through scenarios, but every sentence carries relevant information. It could be better structured with bullet points or clearer separation of options, but it is not excessive.

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 straightforward auth tool with one optional parameter, the description covers login flow, token persistence options, and no-args behavior. The absence of an output schema is not a major gap given the tool's simplicity and the detail provided.

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 defines token as an optional string with no description; description explains it as a JWT to paste and that omitting it triggers the browser flow. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description 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?

Description clearly states the tool authenticates by logging in and copying an access token, giving specific steps. It distinguishes its purpose from most siblings (e.g., show_version, marketplace), though it does not explicitly differentiate from the 'connect' sibling, which could be similar.

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 explicit usage scenarios: permanent connection via config header or session-only via token parameter, plus no-args behavior to get a link. It does not mention alternative sibling tools, so no exclusions are stated, but the context is clear and actionable.

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 known. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the two response cases (all connected vs. missing credentials) and the URLs returned, which is valuable for an agent to interpret the response. It doesn't cover every edge case but sufficiently discloses behavior beyond 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 with no redundant information. It front-loads the main purpose and provides conditional details efficiently. Every word contributes to agent understanding.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers the two main states and the returned URLs. It could potentially elaborate on the partial connection state or error handling, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the 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 zero parameters, so the schema fully documents the input space (100% coverage). The description does not need to explain parameter semantics; baseline for 0 params is 4. No additional meaning is required.

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, with specific detail about the authenticated state and pending array. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than performing authentication, and from other siblings like 'show_version' or 'toolkit_info' by being connection-specific.

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, especially when needing to verify provider connectivity or obtain connect URLs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context of being a read-only status tool is clear, and sibling 'authenticate' suggests the complementary action 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 only provide generic hints (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds significant context: 'invoke works even when the MCP is NOT installed — it runs the tool pontualmente (one-off)', 'If the MCP needs a credential/login, invoke returns a connect link', and 'Writes... require workspace owner/admin.' This goes well 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 long but logically structured: what it is, core search/describe/invoke flow, the KEY invoke distinction, install vs invoke, other actions, prompt library, and permissions. Every sentence contributes useful information without padding.

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 23 params, 14 enum actions, and no output schema, the description covers the major flows, permissions, and behavioral nuances but omits the 'resume' action and several params (immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, prompt_targets, etc.). It is comprehensive for core usage but not exhaustive.

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 23 params and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden. It adds meaning to key parameters: action (search/describe/invoke/install...), mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, and prompt_slug/vars through the explained flows. However, many params (limit, query, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, etc.) are not covered, so it does not fully compensate.

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 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them,' clearly defining the tool's purpose. It further explains the core search/describe/invoke flow and the prompt library, distinguishing this tool from siblings like authenticate and 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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use.' The description also outlines when to use search vs describe vs invoke, and mentions subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, and list_tools, providing clear when-to-use direction.

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 cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: payment via prepaid credit, no credentials required, data is public access, and LGPD responsibility. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand cost and legal 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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by relevant operational details (cost, credentials, data source). The LGPD sentence adds legal context but is not excessive. It is appropriately sized 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 no output schema, the description should describe return values or behavior, but it does not. It covers purpose, access, cost, and legal role, but omits the meaning of the 'completo' parameter and any output format. This makes it only partially complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies 'Cpf' by stating 'a partir do CPF', but 'completo' (a boolean) is left completely undefined. This is a significant gap that the description does not compensate for.

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: 'Verifica se uma pessoa é PEP ou tem parentesco com um PEP, a partir do CPF.' This provides a specific verb (verifica), resource (person via CPF), and differentiates from sibling tools which are generic (authenticate, connect, 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?

The description implies usage context (checking PEP status) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. It mentions 'sem credenciais' and 'pague por consulta' but these are access details, not usage 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 indicate non-destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds one useful behavioral detail: include the conversation array for reproduction. However, it does not disclose response behavior or side effects, which would be helpful.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides a key usage instruction. Very 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?

The tool is simple, but the description leaves parameter semantics incomplete and provides no information about return values or side effects. It covers the core purpose and the critical conversation parameter, but not enough for full understanding.

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 only explains the 'conversation' parameter ('Include the conversation array with recent messages'), while leaving 'message' and 'context' undocumented. The meaning of 'message' is implied by the purpose, but not explicitly mapped.

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 with specific verbs: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are unrelated (authenticate, marketplace, 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?

The purpose is clear enough to imply when to use it (whenever reporting a bug or providing feedback). It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, but sibling tools are so distinct that no additional guidance is needed.

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 true, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide, but it is consistent with them. No contradiction exists, yet the description does not enrich understanding of side effects or edge cases.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and directly communicates the purpose. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a simple, parameterless read tool with no output schema. The description fully captures what the tool does and is complete for the intended use case. 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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description adds clarity by specifying that both MCP platform and adapter versions are shown. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and this holds.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It uses a specific verb 'show' and clearly identifies the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but its purpose is self-evident among the sibling tools. The context is clear: use it to retrieve version information. Since no exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, this is only a slight gap for such a simple 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the exact components of the returned state and claiming it is 'current', implying a fresh snapshot. No contradictions with annotations; no further side-effect details are necessary for a safe read-only operation.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and lists all key return areas (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts) in a compact, readable manner. Every word contributes 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully enumerates what the tool returns: installed MCPs, their connection status, connected accounts per MCP, and the number of exposed catalog tools. This is complete for a simple status-inspection tool with strong annotations.

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 accepts zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly omits parameter details since none exist. This aligns with the baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools.

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 the specific verb 'Returns' with a well-defined resource ('current toolkit state') and enumerates concrete components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'authenticate', 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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative references are provided, but the read-only state description makes it evident that this tool is for inspecting configuration rather than modifying it. The context is clear, though it lacks explicit exclusions or sibling comparisons 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.