Portal da Transparência: Cadastro de Empresas Inidôneas e Suspensas (CEIS)

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, which align with the description's mention of authentication setup. The description adds context about token expiry (permanent vs session-only) and the browser flow, which is valuable. However, it doesn't fully disclose what happens if the token is invalid or whether this call modifies server state beyond setting authentication.

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 but includes multiple pieces of guidance. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and then elaborates. It's slightly long but packs essential information without fluff. The structure is acceptable, though breaking into bullet points could improve 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 the complexity of authentication flows, the description covers the key scenarios: permanent config, session-only token, and getting a login link. It lacks details on error handling or what happens if the token is expired, but overall it's complete for the tool's purpose. The absence of output schema is fine as the behavior is clear.

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 one optional param 'token' with zero schema coverage. The description explains the 'token' parameter in detail: what it is (access token), when to provide it (after user pastes), and that omitting it yields a link. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of description, adding meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to authenticate an IDE agent to the MCP server via browser login and access token. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the login flow and token handling, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'connect' which might be a related authentication tool.

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 guidance: when to add the token to server config for permanent connection, when to paste it for session-only, and when to call with no args to get a link. It gives clear steps and alternatives, which is exemplary.

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 meaningful context about different connection states, which is useful given the readOnlyHint is true and annotations already cover read-only and idempotent. No contradictions, and it adds value beyond annotations by explaining what the tool returns in different conditions.

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 then conditional behaviors. No fluff, every sentence 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema) and annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains the key return fields and conditional behavior, which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect.

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 the output semantics (e.g., authenticated:true, pending[], connect_url) even though there are no parameters. Since schema coverage is 100% (no params), the description provides essential context about return values, which is valuable.

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, distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate and toolkit_info by focusing on status. It could be more specific about what 'connection status' entails, but it's clear and not tautological.

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 (to check connection status) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it differs from authenticate or toolkit_info. It provides context about different states (all connected vs missing credentials), 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 important behaviors: invoke runs tools one-off without installing, missing credentials return a connect link, empty wallet returns a checkout link, and writes require workspace owner/admin. It also notes installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace flags. 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 dense but front-loaded with purpose and core flow, and every sentence adds meaningful information. It is one long block, but the use of 'KEY:' and explicit alternatives keeps it navigable for a 14-action router.

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 highly complex tool with no output schema, the description covers action families, side effects, auth/payment behavior, permissions, and key return values (profile, connect link, checkout link, prompt text, shareable link). It is missing per-parameter details and some return shapes for search/list_tools/install, but overall it is remarkably 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?

With 23 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only explains the action parameter's semantics and references tool_id. Parameters like limit, query, mcp_id, arguments, immediate, tier_slug, prompt_vars, prompt_targets, and others are left 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as the official mcp.ai marketplace and catalog/runner for MCPs, with a specific core flow (search → describe → invoke). It distinguishes itself from siblings by covering catalog discovery, one-off execution, installation, billing, and prompt-library actions.

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 occasional use, use install only for permanent toolkit additions, list_tools for currently callable tools, report_bug for feedback, and request_mcp for building new MCPs. It also explains when invoke returns connect/checkout links and to retry after the user acts.

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 and idempotent behavior. The description adds operational details beyond that: payment via prepaid credit, no platform credentials, the data being non-confidential, and the client's LGPD responsibility as data controller. This enriches the safety and compliance profile.

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 four sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes either purpose, operational context, or legal disclaimer. It could be slightly tighter (e.g., merging the legal note), but it is well-structured and not excessively long.

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 only two string parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it queries, how access works, data sensitivity, and compliance. It does not specify response format, but given no output schema and simple query tool, this is acceptable. Missing rate limits or pagination are minor 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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain what CPF/CNPJ are or how they are used. It only lists them implicitly in the translation ('consulta' suggesting lookup), but there is no guidance on which identifier to use or their purpose. The description fails to compensate for the lack of 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 states the tool performs a consultation (consulta) of the CEIS registry of ineligible and suspended companies from official sources, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace. The target resource and operation are 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 does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but it provides clear context: hosted on platform, no credentials required, paid per query, and data is public. This effectively sets expectations for when it's appropriate, though it could be more explicit about scenarios like checking a company's status.

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-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds that the conversation array is needed for reproduction, but does not describe side effects (e.g., ticket creation) or permissions, leaving moderate ambiguity.

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. The first sentence states purpose, the second provides specific guidance on including conversation, making it well-structured 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 simple reporting tool with three parameters, the description covers the main use case and the important conversation detail. It does not describe output, but that is not required given no output schema. Overall, it is sufficiently 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 description explains that 'conversation' is for reproduction, but does not clarify the 'context' parameter or the content of 'message'. Schema coverage is 0%, so description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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: reporting bugs, missing features, or sending feedback. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like show_version or authenticate.

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 (when reporting bugs/feedback) and contrasts implicitly with other tools. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative conditions, though the context is 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 readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying exactly what versions are shown (MCP platform and adapter), which goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent specific expectations about the output.

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, concise sentence that entirely captures the tool's function with zero fluff. Perfectly sized for a tool with no parameters.

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 version query, the description is fully complete. It states exactly what information is returned (MCP platform and adapter versions). No output schema exists, but the return is self-evident. Annotations already cover the safety profile, so no additional disclosure 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, so the schema is trivially covered. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no extra parameter info (none needed). It doesn't need to compensate for any missing schema details.

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 current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which serve 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 purpose itself carries the usage context: if you need version information, this is the tool. While no explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, the tool is so straightforward that the implied usage is clear enough. Given the sibling set, there is no other version-query tool, so no alternatives are necessary.

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 covered. The description adds meaningful context by detailing the specific payload of the return value (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, tool counts), which goes beyond simple 'returns state'. This is valuable transparency for an info tool, though it does not disclose potential latency or failure modes.

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 is clear, specific, and free of extraneous detail. Every piece of information ('installed MCPs', 'connection status', 'accounts', 'catalog tool counts') is meaningful and directly relevant to the tool's purpose.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It sufficiently explains what the tool returns and what the word 'state' encompasses. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to misuse the tool. It is as complete as needed for this straightforward info 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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the empty input schema is trivially fully covered. The description correctly omits any parameter discussion.

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 identifies the resource as 'current toolkit state'. It enumerates exactly what is included (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which effectively distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like connect or authenticate.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever an agent needs an overview of the toolkit's state. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is unambiguous given the read-only nature and sibling tool names. It would benefit from an explicit 'use this when...' statement, but the implied usage is strong.

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