PETI (Trabalho Infantil)

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

The description discloses that calling with no arguments returns a login link, while calling with a token performs session-only authentication. It also mentions the non-expiring header configuration, adding context beyond the annotations (idempotentHint, readOnlyHint, destructiveHint). 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 two sentences and front-loads the key action (log in via browser, copy token). Some redundancy exists ('MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)' could be removed), but overall it is compact and information-dense.

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 schema (one optional parameter) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main usage scenarios: permanent config-based auth, session-only token auth, and retrieval of the login link. No major gaps.

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 only lists 'token' as an optional string with 0% description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining that 'token' is a JWT pasted by the user for session login, and that omitting it returns the login link. This is clear and actionable.

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 a user for MCP.AI by logging in via browser and obtaining a token. It specifies the context (IDE agents like Cursor) and the action, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool '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?

Provides clear usage guidance: recommends adding the token to the server config for a permanent connection, or pasting the token for a session-only login. It explains the two invocation modes (with/without token), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over the sibling 'connect'.

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, and the description adds contextual behavior: it specifies the response shape for 'all providers connected' vs 'credentials missing,' including the connect_url and per-install URLs. This goes beyond the structured fields.

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 main purpose and concise state-specific behavior. 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, no-output-schema tool, the description sufficiently covers the primary states (all connected vs credentials missing). It does not describe partial connection states, but the two extremes are clear enough for typical usage.

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 baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.

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's function: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It also explains state-dependent outputs (authenticated:true vs connect_url), distinguishing it from sibling 'authenticate' which performs auth rather than checking status.

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 it (checking connection status and obtaining URLs when credentials are missing) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling 'authenticate' exists but is not referenced, leaving room for explicit 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?

Beyond the sparse annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), the description discloses important behaviors: invoke can run uninstalled MCPs one-off without bloating the toolkit, may return connect or checkout links requiring user action and retry, and writes require workspace owner/admin. It also explains the installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace flags, making side effects clear.

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 text is dense and every sentence adds value, but it is formatted as a single wall of text with no bullet points or clear separation of the 14 sub-actions. Length is justified by complexity, but structure could be improved for quick scanning.

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 is thorough for a complex tool: it covers the full search/describe/invoke lifecycle, install vs invoke trade-offs, auth and billing behaviors, the prompt library, and write-permission requirements. It misses minor details like the resume action and exact return shape, but overall provides enough context for correct tool invocation without an output 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 description coverage, the description carries the burden and partially compensates by explaining action enum values, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, prompt_vars, and related fields through the workflow. However, it omits meaning for several params like limit, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, and prompt_targets, so some gap remains.

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 is the official mcp.ai marketplace—a catalog of MCPs/tools and the way to run them. It gives a specific core flow (search → describe → invoke) and distinguishes the tool from siblings like authenticate or toolkit_info by emphasizing its catalog and execution role.

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 guidance on when to use each action: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use,' 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT,' and 'request_mcp asks us to build a NEW MCP when nothing fits.' It also contrasts list_tools as 'what is callable right now' and covers credential and payment fallbacks, giving clear alternatives.

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. The description adds context about payment requirements, credential-free access, public data classification, and LGPD responsibilities, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 composed of four sentences, each contributing useful information: purpose, hosting/payment, data access classification, and LGPD responsibility. It is slightly verbose due to legal disclaimers, but remains concise overall.

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?

It covers access type, payment, data sensitivity, and legal responsibilities, but lacks information about the return format or the meaning of the 'completo' parameter. Since there is no output schema, the description should have explained what the tool returns, which it does not.

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 explains that CPF and NIS identify the person, but it does not explain the optional 'completo' boolean parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, it partially compensates but leaves one parameter undocumented.

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 a specific verb ('verifica') and resource ('Programa de Erradicação do Trabalho Infantil (PETI)') and clearly identifies the required inputs (CPF and NIS). It is well-differentiated from unrelated sibling tools like authenticate, marketplace, 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?

It clearly indicates the operational context: hosted on the platform, no credentials, pay-per-query with prepaid credit, and queries only public access data. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, though siblings are unrelated.

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, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false. The description adds a behavioral instruction about including the conversation array for reproduction, but doesn't disclose other side effects or response behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 with two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and specific guidance. Every word earns its place, 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and existing annotations, the description covers the core purpose and one key parameter, but omits details about return values and the other two parameters. It is adequate for a basic report tool but leaves gaps.

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 purpose of the 'conversation' parameter ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'), but does not describe 'message' or 'context'. This partial compensation earns a mid score.

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 with a specific verb ('Report') and targets (bug, missing feature, feedback), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or show_version. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (reporting bugs/features/feedback) without explicitly naming alternatives. It lacks explicit exclusions but the purpose itself serves as a sufficient usage guideline given the unrelated sibling set.

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 fully covered. The description adds specific behavioral context by clarifying that it shows both platform and adapter versions, which goes beyond the generic 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 sentence containing only the essential information: what the tool shows and for which components. No filler, perfectly 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 that the tool has no parameters, rich annotations, and a simple purpose, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what to expect: current versions of the platform and adapters. No output schema is needed because the return value is self-explanatory for a version utility.

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 is trivially complete at 100% coverage. The description need not explain parameters. Baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and no additional information is necessary.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and report_bug by focusing solely on version display. No ambiguity or tautology.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the tool's purpose is obvious and self-explanatory for version checking. It is implied that this is the tool to use when needing version information, but no direct comparison with sibling tools or exclusions are provided.

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, which covers the safety profile. The description adds valuable context by detailing what 'state' includes, going beyond the annotations. No contradictions or hidden side effects are indicated.

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 action and lists the key outputs. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no waste or 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 zero-parameter, read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description fully enumerates the return contents. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what this tool offers without needing further details.

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 takes zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description correctly focuses on the output, and there is no need to explain parameter semantics. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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' and clearly specifies the resource ('current toolkit state') and the exact components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (to inspect toolkit state) and implicitly differentiates it from siblings by listing what it returns. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it lacks the full exclusionary guidance for a 5.

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