Portal da Transparência: Garantia-Safra

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description explains the behavioral difference between permanent config-based auth and session-only pasted token, and what happens when calling with no args (returns a link). It does not contradict the annotations and adds useful context about the token's life span and the login flow.

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 dense paragraph, but every sentence contributes useful information. It is front-loaded with context and explains both methods efficiently. Slightly long but still clear and not bloated.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential contexts: browser login, two token handling options, and the no-arg link retrieval. It does not explicitly state what a successful token-pasting call returns, but given the simplicity of the tool, it is reasonably 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 schema has zero description coverage for the 'token' parameter, but the description fully compensates by explaining exactly how to use it: 'call with { token: "<jwt>" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link.' This gives the parameter clear meaning and usage.

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: authentication for IDE agents via browser login. It explicitly describes the two authentication methods (config header vs. session token) and even mentions the target audience (Cursor, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'connect' by focusing on login/token, not connection setup.

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 explicit instructions on when to use each method: add token to config for a permanent connection, or paste it for session-only login. It also says to call with no args to get the link. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'connect', so the usage guidance is complete for its internal alternatives but not for tool selection.

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, destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context about what the return values look like (authenticated:true and empty pending[], connect_url when missing credentials). This adds value, but with annotations covering the safety profile, 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no fluff. Every word earns its place, explaining behavior and output conditions succinctly.

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 and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the two main output states (all connected vs missing credentials) and mentions the URLs returned. Slightly more detail on the structure of pending[] could improve it, but it's sufficient for a simple status-check 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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description explains the output semantics (authenticated flag, pending array, connect_url) which is the main value for a parameterless tool. Baseline 4 for 0 params is appropriate, and the description adds meaningful interpretation of results.

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 returns connection status and URLs, providing a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like authenticate and toolkit_info by focusing on connection status, though not explicitly naming them.

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 (to check connection status and retrieve URLs) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It's clear enough for basic guidance but lacks 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?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds rich behavioral context: invoke runs MCPs without installing them, returns connect/checkout links under specific conditions, writes require workspace owner/admin, and the prompt library has its own publish/get semantics. This goes well beyond the annotations, proactively disclosing side effects and security boundaries.

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, dense wall of text with no bullet points, line breaks, or headers. While comprehensive, it is hard to parse mentally, especially for agents that need to quickly locate specific details. The first sentence is strong, but subsequent sentences run together, mixing marketplace actions, prompt library, and billing details without visual structure.

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 (23 parameters, no output schema, 14+ actions), the description covers an impressive array of scenarios: discovery, installation, one-off invocation, authentication, payment, authorization, and the prompt library. It could be faulted for not explicitly listing every parameter, but the narrative flow addresses the vast majority of agent questions.

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 central `action` parameter thoroughly, including allowed values and their effects, and touches on prompt_vars, prompt_targets, cancel_reason, and conversation. However, it does not enumerate every parameter (e.g., limit, message, mcp_id are omitted). Still, given the dispatch-like nature, the description covers the essential 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 immediately establishes the tool as 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It further details the core flow (search → describe → invoke) and distinguishes between sub-actions like list_tools and search_prompts, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like report_bug or show_version.

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 when-to-use guidance for multiple actions: 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', 'list_tools lists what is callable right now', and explains connect/checkout flows for auth and payment. It also covers edge cases like insufficient wallet balance and permission requirements, leaving little ambiguity about when to select this tool over 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 indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds context about data source, LGPD compliance, and payment requirements, which are useful. However, it doesn't disclose potential rate limits or output format. Overall, it adds some value but not extensive behavioral details.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It covers key aspects without fluff. Each 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 has only 1 parameter, no output schema, and annotations cover safety, the description is fairly complete. It mentions the official source, payment model, data privacy, and purpose. Missing details like expected output structure or error handling, but acceptable for a simple query 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the 'cpf' parameter. It implies that the CPF is used to query Garantia-Safra information, but does not specify format (e.g., with or without punctuation). This is a gap, but the purpose is clear enough that the agent can infer. Baseline 3 given 0% coverage, but lacks explicit formatting guidance.

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: consulting 'Garantia-Safra' data from the official Brazilian transparency portal. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming the specific resource (Garantia-Safra) and the data domain. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from specific alternatives, but it is clear 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?

Is Վении observe虚实知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了知道了

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 this is non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds context about including the conversation for reproduction, which is useful, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits like side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. Since annotations exist, the burden is lower, but the description still provides minimal extra insight.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides a key usage instruction. There is no filler or redundancy, and the most important information (purpose) is 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, the description covers the core purpose and the critical instruction about the conversation parameter. However, it does not explain the 'context' parameter, does not describe what the 'message' should contain beyond the general purpose, and does not mention expected output or post-submission behavior (especially since there is no output schema). These gaps make it adequate but not fully 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 0% property description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the 'conversation' parameter (a JSON array for reproduction), leaving 'context' and 'message' under-specified. 'Message' is partially implied as the bug report text, but 'context' remains unclear. The description adds some meaning but not enough to fully compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and identifies the resource (bug/feature/feedback), and it is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which 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 this tool (when encountering an issue or wanting to give feedback) and instructs to include the conversation array for reproduction, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. It lacks clear exclusion conditions or alternative tool references.

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, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well-covered. The description adds that it shows both MCP platform and adapter versions, which is a minor benefit. However, it does not disclose whether the tool makes network calls or if it returns any system-specific info, but given the simplicity, this is adequate. 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 a single sentence, exactly 14 words, and is front-loaded with the action and subject. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy. It is highly concise and clear.

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 parameters, no output schema, well-covered annotations), the description is fully adequate to inform an agent. It states the purpose and the specific outputs (platform and adapter versions). The only minor gap is that it doesn't mention the output format, but since there is no output schema, the description could have been slightly more detailed, but for a version check, it is complete enough.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (since there are no properties). The description does not need to explain parameters because there are none. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not add any parameter-specific information, but that is acceptable. The description clarifies what it returns (platform and adapter versions), which adds some semantics beyond the empty 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 what the tool does: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It uses a specific verb ('show') and the resource (versions), which is enough for a query-like tool with no parameters. It does not require distinguishing from siblings because no other sibling tool mentions versioning, and the title 'Show Version' reinforces the 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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus others, but given the tool name and purpose, it is apparent that this is a diagnostic or informational command. The context signals indicate 0 parameters and a read-only operation, so the usage is straightforward. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, such as for debugging or checking compatibility, but the simple purpose is self-evident.

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 the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is disclosed. The description adds detail on what information is returned (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, counts) but doesn't clarify whether connection statuses are live or cached, or any potential latency/refresh behavior. Reasonable 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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and enumerates the key output categories. No fluff, every element adds value.

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 zero parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects of what the tool returns. It could mention whether the info is real-time or cached, but for a simple info tool, this is nearly 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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds meaning by explaining what the return payload contains, which entirely compensates for the lack of parameters. There's nothing more needed here.

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 categories: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, marketplace, and show_version, which handle different aspects of the toolkit.

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 use when the agent needs a snapshot of toolkit state. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but given the straightforward read-only nature and zero parameters, the context is clear enough. Sibling names provide some differentiation.

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