Prefeitura GO Anápolis: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining the token expiration behavior: config-based header is permanent and non-expiring, while passing the token is session-only. This adds useful context not present in annotations (idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false). However, it does not disclose what happens after authentication (e.g., side effects like storing the token internally) or if there are any side effects on subsequent requests. The annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, so the description adds moderate value beyond that.

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, uses clear formatting with colons and a best-practice tip. It is front-loaded with the target audience (IDE agents) and then quickly covers the two usage modes. Every sentence adds value, covering purpose, usage, and parameter semantics without unnecessary fluff. The structure flows logically from explaining the intended use to providing detailed instructions.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the authentication flow, the two usage modes, and the parameter semantics. However, it could be more complete by mentioning what the expected response looks like (e.g., success message) or any error scenarios, but given the simplicity, this is not a major 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 schema has one optional parameter 'token' with no description and 0% schema coverage. The description compensates by explaining that 'token' is a JWT passed after the user pastes it, and that calling without arguments returns the login link. This is crucial semantic information that the schema lacks. The description fully explains the parameter's meaning and usage, effectively compensating for the schema's lack of detail.

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: authenticating the user by providing a login link or accepting a token. It explicitly mentions 'log in in the browser, copy the access token' and explains two modes: permanent config-based auth and session-only token paste. While it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools like 'connect', the purpose is specific and actionable, distinguishing it from other tools by its focus on 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 usage guidelines: when to use the browser flow (with no args to get the link), and when to paste the token (with { token: '<jwt>' }). It also mentions an alternative of adding to config for permanent connection, which serves as guidance on when not to use session-only login. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use 'connect' as an alternative, leaving some ambiguity with sibling 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the description adds value by explaining the output variants (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs. connect_url). This extra context beyond annotations is useful for understanding the tool's state-dependent responses.

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 every sentence provides actionable information. No fluff or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essential return values for both states (authenticated and missing credentials). Combined with strong annotations, this is complete for a simple status tool, though it could mention any side effects (none expected) or throttling, but not necessary here.

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% (no properties). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is no need for parameter explanation. The description correctly focuses on output behavior.

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 specific behavior for connected vs. missing credentials. It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate and show_version by focusing on status retrieval.

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 for checking connectivity but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or exclude certain scenarios. It provides context for two states but lacks direct guidance on when to invoke this tool versus authenticate or other status-related 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?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and the description asserts invoke works even if MCP is not installed, runs 'pontualmente' (one-off) without bloating the toolkit, and returns connect/checkout links when needed. It discloses permission requirements ('Writes ... require workspace owner/admin') and notes that search/describe flag installation status. 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 long but densely packed with indispensable information, front-loading the core purpose and flow before covering edge cases. It uses clear structure (core flow, key invocation behavior, when to install, prompt library) and avoids filler. Slightly verbose, but every section earns its place for such a complex multi-action 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 tool's extreme complexity (14 actions, 23 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers all major behavioral aspects: discovery, invocation, installation, permissions, billing, prompt library, and even recovery flows (connect/checkout links). It leaves nothing critical unaddressed, making it a complete guide for an agent.

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 compensates by explaining the action enum and what each action does, but does not detail parameter formats or constraints beyond noting 'arguments' is a JSON string. It leaves ambiguity for parameters like prompt_vars, prompt_targets, and cancel_reason. The high-level action semantics are clear, but per-parameter semantics are lacking.

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 explicitly states this is 'the official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It enumerates covered intents ('find an MCP that does X', 'consulta um CPF') and distinguishes from siblings like report_bug, show_version, and toolkit_info by detailing the marketplace's unique search/describe/invoke flow.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT' vs 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', and explains the core flow (action=search → describe → invoke). It also clarifies when to use list_tools vs search/describe, and covers the prompt library's separate workflow.

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 operation safe (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds meaningful behavioral context: each query consumes prepaid credit (cost implication), no platform credentials are needed, data is non-confidential public info, and client bears LGPD responsibility. 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?

A single run-on paragraph mixing core purpose with payment terms, privacy disclaimers, and LGPD compliance. The key functional detail is buried under boilerplate; could be tightened to two sentences without losing 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?

For a 4-param tool with no output schema or enums, the description must clarify how to fill required fields and what the response means; it does neither. The LGPD mention hints at finalidade/interesse, but the agent still doesn't know what values to pass or what to expect back.

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% for all 4 parameters (cpf, cnpj, interesse, finalidade), and the description provides zero compensation—no format, required selection between cpf/cnpj, or meaning of finalidade/interesse. Since coverage is far below 50%, description had to compensate but didn't.

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 this tool queries Certidão Negativa de Débitos (tax clearance certificate) for Anápolis city from official sources. The specific verb 'consulta' (query) plus a concrete resource distinguishes it from generic siblings like 'connect' and '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?

No explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. While it mentions pay-per-query and LGPD responsibility, it never clarifies when to choose this tool over others or what triggers its use—only vague context that it queries official Brazilian sources.

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 is not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds that conversation data is needed for reproduction, which is useful context, but it doesn't disclose side effects like where the report goes or if it triggers external actions. Given annotations, the description adds some value 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that quickly communicate purpose and a key usage hint. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it efficient with no fluff.

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?

Despite having annotations and a simple schema, the description is too brief for a tool with three parameters. It doesn't explain the expected format of 'message' or 'context', nor what happens after submission. The tool's role in issue reporting is clear, but operational details are missing, making the description incomplete for effective use.

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. It only hints at the 'conversation' parameter ('Include the conversation array') and leaves 'message' and 'context' unexplained. With three parameters and only one mentioned, the description fails to provide adequate meaning beyond what the schema already shows.

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: reporting bugs, missing features, or sending feedback, with a specific instruction to include conversation data. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate or connect by focusing on issue reporting, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 the tool (when encountering a bug or giving feedback) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. It lacks exclusion criteria or prerequisites, leaving usage context mostly implied.

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific behavioral detail that it reports both platform and adapter versions, which is useful context 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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and scope. It contains no wasted words or redundant information.

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 fully covers what the tool does. The annotations provide the safety and idempotency details, making the description complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 trivial (100% coverage by default). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate since there are none.

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 precisely states the tool shows the current MCP platform and adapter versions, using a specific verb ('show') and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or report_bug, which have unrelated 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 description provides clear context that the tool is used to retrieve version information, though it doesn't explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives. Given there are no sibling tools with overlapping functionality, this is sufficient and 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 the tool read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world. The description adds valuable context by specifying the returned state fields (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, catalog counts), which is not available from annotations or an output schema. It does not describe exact formatting or potential edge cases, but this is sufficient for a simple inspection tool.

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 front-loads the action ('Returns') and the resource ('current toolkit state'), then uses a colon to enumerate the key contents. No redundant words or filler; every element 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only state tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it lists what is returned and the annotations cover safety semantics. There are no complex inputs, prerequisites, or side effects to disclose, so nothing important is missing.

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 covers everything trivially. The description correctly focuses on outputs rather than inputs, and no additional parameter explanation is warranted.

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 resource ('current toolkit state'), and enumerates the exact content: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from siblings like connect, authenticate, and show_version, which address different concerns.

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 the tool should be used when an agent needs an overview of the toolkit's current state, including MCP connections and catalog exposure. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when to prefer an alternative (e.g., show_version), so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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