Prefeitura CE Fortaleza: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by distinguishing permanent/non-expiring config-based auth from session-only token login, and by explaining that no-args calls return a browser link. It does not explicitly describe all side effects, but the main behavioral outcomes are disclosed.

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 packs a lot of actionable detail into three sentences, with the important browser-auth context upfront. It could be slightly tighter, but no sentence is wasted and the structure supports the two usage modes.

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 and a sparse input schema, the description covers the essential context: two authentication paths, configuration guidance, and exact invocation examples. It stops short of describing return values, but the tool remains practically invocable.

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 carry the semantic weight. It does so by specifying that the token is a JWT pasted by the user and showing the exact expected call shape with { token: "<jwt>" }, which meaningfully clarifies the parameter.

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 authentication as the tool's function and names the workflow: logging in via the browser, copying an access token, and getting a link when called with no args. However, it never explicitly states 'authenticates this server to MCP.AI' and does not differentiate from the sibling 'connect' 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 is explicit about usage: the best permanent approach is setting the token in the server config, while pasting the token here is for session-only login. It also details exact calling variants with and without the token, giving clear guidance on when to use each.

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 and idempotentHint, and the description adds nonzero behavioral context: it explains the exact conditional responses (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs. connect_url and per-install URLs). This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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, front-loads the primary purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful detail about the two possible states. No wasted words or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 adequately explains what the tool returns under different conditions. It covers the main success and missing-credential cases, giving enough detail for an agent to understand the tool's behavior without needing more.

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%, so there is no parameter information needed. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation 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 a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like authenticate by focusing on status retrieval rather than performing authentication.

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 on when to use the tool: to check connection status, including specific scenarios for all providers connected versus missing credentials. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for a simple status 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?

Discloses non-obvious behavior well beyond annotations: invoke runs uninstalled MCPs one-off without bloating the toolkit, writes require workspace owner/admin, and auth/billing failures return actionable links. Annotations only give coarse hints, so this descriptive detail carries real weight.

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 justifiably so for a 14-action megatool. It is front-loaded with the central purpose and core flow, and most sentences add useful operational detail. Some run-on phrasing and a stray Portuguese example could be tightened, but the structure is largely effective.

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 high-complexity tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers main flows, permission requirements, billing/auth edge cases, installed flags, and the prompt library. Minor gaps remain around return shapes, limit/pagination behavior, and some request/report parameters, but overall coverage is strong.

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 heavily. It explains action semantics, the mcp_id/tool_id/arguments flow, prompt_* fields, and billing-related params. However, several params like limit, query, immediate, conversation, request_name, and report_context remain undocumented beyond their names.

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 identifies marketplace as the official mcp.ai catalog and execution layer, with an explicit core flow: search → describe → invoke. It distinguishes itself from siblings by covering both discovery and running of MCPs/tools, not just a single utility action.

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 concrete when-to-use guidance: prefer invoke for one-off use, use install only for permanent toolkit addition, list_tools for currently callable tools, and request_mcp when nothing fits. Also explains auth/billing failure modes and the retry behavior after connect/checkout links.

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?

Discloses key behaviors: hosted by platform, no platform credentials required, pay per query with prepaid credit, data is not confidential, and LGPD compliance. Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent, so this description adds meaningful context about payment and data handling without contradiction.

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?

Four concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and covering essential operational details without fluff. Could be slightly more structured but is appropriately sized.

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 lack of parameter descriptions and no output schema, the description should explain parameter usage and expected results. It does not, leaving the agent without enough information to correctly invoke the tool, despite covering payment and legal aspects.

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?

Input schema has 3 parameters with no descriptions and 0% coverage. The description does not mention cpf, cnpj, or preferencia_emissao at all, failing to provide any guidance on what these parameters mean or which are 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?

Clear purpose: it's a consultation tool for Certidão Negativa de Débitos (negative debt certificate) from Fortaleza city hall, explicitly stating 'consulta em fonte oficial'. This distinguishes it from the general platform 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?

Implies usage for CND queries, and mentions payment model and credential requirements. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions; still, no close sibling alternatives exist, so the implicit guidance is sufficient.

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 idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no further behavioral details. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., sending data externally), timing, or any special dependencies beyond saying to include a conversation. Since annotations only convey basic safety hints, the description should provide more context but falls short, providing no insight into the tool's actual operations or consequences.

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 extremely concise at just two sentences, with the primary purpose stated in the first line. There is no redundant phrasing or filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, and the structure is front-loaded with the action and scope.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It gives high-level purpose and one parameter hint but does not explain the expected outcome, how to format the message, or additional nuances like whether context is optional and how to use it. The description is adequate for a trivial case but lacks depth for a helpful agent understanding, especially given the low schema coverage.

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 schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explicitly explains the 'conversation' parameter (gives it a purpose for reproduction) and implicitly clarifies that 'message' contains the bug/feedback text. However, the 'context' parameter remains undefined. This gives moderate value but leaves a gap for one parameter, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 action (report) and resource (bug, missing feature, or feedback), making its primary purpose unmistakable. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like 'show_version' or 'marketplace' by focusing on issue reporting, and the wording is specific enough to avoid ambiguity.

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 provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for bug reporting and feedback but omits any conditions, exclusions, or mention of sibling tools that might serve different purposes. This could confuse an agent deciding between report_bug and other operations.

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, making the safety profile clear. The description adds resource context ('MCP platform and adapter versions') but no further behavioral details such as exit conditions or output format.

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, focused sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any filler or redundancy. 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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, clear annotations), the description is sufficient for a user to understand what the tool does. A minor gap is the lack of information about the response format, but that is not critical for a version inquiry.

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 description coverage is 100%. Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies and the description appropriately remains silent about them.

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 uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect. The purpose is unambiguous and concise.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as toolkit_info or marketplace are not mentioned, and there is no stated context or exclusion criteria.

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 accurately reflects the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature of the tool as per annotations. It adds detail on what is returned, which enhances transparency beyond the annotations alone. No mention of potential errors, but that is acceptable for a simple getter.

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 covers all relevant aspects without superfluous detail. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary 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 that there is no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts). This meets the needs for a diagnostic tool, and the lack of error details is not a significant gap.

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 no parameters, so the input schema provides complete coverage. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it does not introduce any ambiguity. This is a trivial case where the description fully supports the 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 function: returning the current toolkit state including installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. It is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 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 does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough that it is implied to be used for retrieving toolkit state. No explicit exclusions or alternative references, but the context makes it obvious.

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