Prefeitura BA Juazeiro: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

The description discloses the effects of the tool: using the token for permanent config vs session-only. It does not explicitly mention side effects like token storage, but the annotations (destructiveHint:false, idempotentHint:true) align and the description gives a transparent view of both 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 dense but organized: it starts with the general process, then presents two alternatives. It is not overly verbose, though the phrasing 'Best:' and 'Or' could be streamlined. Overall, it is 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 description is complete for the tool's function: it explains the two usage scenarios, what each call does (returns link vs authenticates), and the permanent vs session difference. No output schema is needed since the behavior is fully described.

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 single parameter 'token' is fully explained: it is the JWT to paste for session login, and if omitted, the tool returns the login link. The description clarifies both call modes clearly.

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 MCP.AI for IDE agents. It explains the two methods of using the token (permanent config addition or session-only) and the two call variations (with or without token).

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 usage instructions: log in via browser, copy token, then either add to config for permanent use or paste for session-only. It also clarifies when to call with token vs without args to get the login link.

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 provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the two distinct return states (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs connect_url and per-install URLs), which is behavioral detail beyond what annotations convey. 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?

Two tight sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by explaining conditional outputs. No filler or repetition of schema/annotation data.

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 with rich annotations, the description adequately covers the primary scenarios in prose. A minor gap: partial connectivity states (some providers connected, some not) aren't addressed, but the two main cases are well covered.

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 zero parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description correctly implies that no input is required to perform the status check, and there are no undocumented params to 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 opens with 'Returns connection status and URLs', a specific verb+resource that clearly states what the tool does. It distinguishes from the sibling `authenticate` tool by framing this as a status-check rather than an auth action, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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?

Usage context is implied through the conditional outcome descriptions ('When all providers are connected' vs 'When credentials are missing'), which signals when the tool is relevant. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to use this versus `authenticate` or other siblings, and no exclusions stated.

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?

With annotations present (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the bar is lower, but the description adds valuable context beyond them: one-off execution semantics ('without adding the MCP to the toolkit and without bloating the tool list'), auth/payment edge cases (connect link, checkout/top-up link then retry), and permission requirements ('Writes ... require workspace owner/admin'). No contradiction with annotations — arguably impossible to confirm contradiction given the formatting, but the content seems consistent with readOnlyHint=false.

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 dense paragraph (~300 words) for a 23-param, 14-action dispatcher. It is front-loaded with the core message and every sentence earns its place, but the prompt-library section is tacked on and would benefit from bullet separation. The length is justified by the tool's 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?

For an extremely complex dispatcher with no output schema, the description covers the discovery flow, install-vs-invoke decision, permission model, billing/auth edge cases, and the separate prompt library. It does not precisely specify search/describe return formats, but coverage is thorough for this scope.

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, and it does: the action enum (14 values) is mapped to flows, and mcp_id/tool_id/arguments are explained for describe and invoke. A few params (immediate, tier_slug, conversation, limit) remain undocumented, but the highest-leverage semantics are well 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 opens with a specific, unambiguous statement: 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It maps intent phrases directly ('find an MCP that does X', 'consulta um CPF') and fully distinguishes itself from siblings like report_bug, connect, and authenticate by centering on catalog discovery plus execution.

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?

Exceptionally explicit when-to-use guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', the ordered core flow (search → describe → invoke), and action-specific triggers ('list_tools lists what is callable right now', 'request_mcp asks us to build a NEW MCP when nothing fits', 'subscribe/cancel handle per-MCP billing'). This clearly frames decision boundaries.

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 valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: it mentions the query is hosted by the platform, requires no credentials, involves prepaid credit, accesses official Brazilian sources, and clarifies data is not confidential. It also addresses LGPD compliance. It does not contradict any 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 moderately concise but has redundant information (e.g., 'consulta em fonte oficial' is repeated conceptually later). It could be streamlined, but it is 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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the content of the certificate, success/failure indications, or any error conditions). It also omits details about parameter handling or edge cases, making it incomplete for a user.

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 lists cpf and cnpj without any descriptions, and the description does not mention these parameters at all. It fails to explain what they represent, which one is required, or their format. Given zero schema coverage, the description should have compensated but did not.

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 queries a negative debt certificate (Certidão Negativa de Débitos) from an official source, specifying the municipality (Juazeiro/BA). It distinguishes itself from generic sibling tools like authenticate or connect by focusing on this specific query.

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 implicit usage context, such as being a paid query (crédito pré-pago) and requiring no platform credentials. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it, but the specificity makes the intended use 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 include idempotentHint=true, indicating the operation can be repeated without different effects, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it's for reporting issues and suggests including conversation context, but doesn't detail side effects like whether data is sent externally, rate limits, or authentication needs. Since idempotent and non-destructive are already declared, the description adds modest context but not deep transparency.

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, concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides a key usage hint. No waste, but it could be slightly more structured by explicitly naming 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?

Without an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the main purpose and hints at reproduction steps. However, for a tool with three parameters and no param descriptions, it could explain the 'context' parameter and clarify how the conversation array should be formatted. It's adequate but not 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 coverage is 0%, and the description mentions 'Include the conversation array' which gives context for the 'conversation' parameter. However, it doesn't explain 'context' or 'message' beyond what the schema provides. With no param info in schema, the description partially compensates but not fully; 'message' is obvious as required, but 'context' is 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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It specifies the verb 'report' and the resource (bug/feature/feedback), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like show_version and toolkit_info by focusing on reporting issues rather than querying information.

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 you need to report a bug or feedback), but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. It mentions including the conversation array for reproduction, which gives some context, but lacks exclusions or comparison to other tools.

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 conveys that the tool only retrieves version information, implying no mutations. This is consistent with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. No side effects are mentioned, which is acceptable given the simple nature of the 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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It front-loads the key information with no superfluous wording, making it an exemplary for a simple info 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?

Given the simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool does. It could benefit from mentioning the exact output format (e.g., 'returns version strings'), but the name and description together are sufficient for users to understand the tool's function.

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 description covers all parameter-related semantics. Per the scoring rules, 0 params results in a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool shows current MCP platform and adapter versions, which aligns with the tool name. It is concise and unambiguous, leaving no doubt about the tool's function.

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 doesn't explicitly mention when to use this tool (e.g., during troubleshooting or configuration validation). However, for a simple read-only utility, the use case is fairly self-evident from the name and description, so a baseline score is appropriate.

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, establishing the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the exact content of the state returned (MCPs, statuses, accounts, tool counts), which is behaviorally informative.

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 main action ('Returns the current toolkit state') followed by a concise enumeration of contents. No filler or redundant wording.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It does so thoroughly by listing all major categories (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), making the tool's output predictable and complete for a low-complexity 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 input schema has no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no redundant parameter information.

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 ('Returns') and a defined resource ('current toolkit state'), enumerating exactly what is included (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts). This distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like authenticate or 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?

The description provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate: whenever the agent needs to inspect the toolkit state. It does not include explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough to infer usage without confusion.

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