Prefeitura MG Betim: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: it explains that using no args returns a link (for browser login), and that passing a token enables a session-only login. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., storing the token) or what happens after successful authentication. It adds some value beyond annotations but could be more explicit about state changes.

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 not overly verbose. It is front-loaded with the core action ('log in in the browser, copy the access token') and then logically explains the two usage methods. Every sentence adds relevant information, though it could be slightly tightened without losing meaning.

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 a single optional parameter, no output schema, and moderate complexity (authentication with two modes), the description covers the primary use cases: obtaining a link, providing a token, and the permanent config option. It doesn't detail return values or error cases, but for this scope 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining the single 'token' parameter: it is a JWT used for session-only login when pasted, and optional because calling with no args retrieves a login link. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema definition.

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 users for MCP.AI IDE agents. It specifies the verb (log in, paste token) and the resource (MCP.AI), and distinguishes usage modes (permanent config vs session token). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling 'connect', the purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 instructions: log in in browser, copy token, then either add to server config for permanent access or pass token for session login. It also explains the no-args call to get a link. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only, non-destructive behavior is well-covered. The description adds the conditional outputs (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs. connect_url when credentials missing), which is useful context beyond annotations. It does not disclose details like rate limits or side effects, but given the annotations, a score of 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?

The description is concise, two sentences, and front-loads the core purpose. It efficiently uses limited space to explain both success and failure states. It is structured well, with the first sentence stating the action and the second explaining the conditional results. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more explicit about usage.

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 sheet has no parameters and no output schema, the description is the primary source of operational detail. It covers both connected and missing-credentials states, but does not describe the response format for the per-install URLs or clarify how the return relates to sibling tools. For a zero-parameter status tool, this is adequate but not fully 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description carries no burden for parameter semantics. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), and the description provides a clear overview of the output states based on connection status. Thus, the description adds value by clarifying what the tool returns without parameters.

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 indicates the tool returns connection status and URLs, and specifies a condition (all providers connected) that yields authenticated:true and empty pending[]. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info', leaving differentiation somewhat implicit.

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 this tool is for checking connection status, but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings like 'authenticate' (which likely initiates authentication) or 'toolkit_info'. No exclusions or alternative usage guidance is provided, but the context of returning status suggests appropriate use for status checks.

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 (openWorldHint, readOnlyHint false), the description discloses key behaviors: invoke runs MCPs without installation, returns connect/checkout links when needed, and requires workspace owner/admin for writes. This adds significant context not present in the annotations, with no contradictions.

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 lengthy but logically structured, moving from purpose to actions to the prompt library. Every sentence contributes value, though it could benefit from bullet points for easier navigation. It is not redundant, but the sheer length affects 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?

For a tool with 23 parameters and no output schema, the description covers most actions and behaviors, including the prompt library, credential/wallet flows, and admin requirements. However, it omits details on 'resume' and some secondary parameters, leaving a few gaps in an otherwise comprehensive definition.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), but the description explains the action parameter and core parameters (mcp_id, tool_id, arguments) through the flow. However, it does not systematically document all 23 parameters, leaving some like 'immediate' and 'conversation' unaddressed, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 the tool is the official mcp.ai marketplace, serving as both a catalog and runtime. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its broad scope (search, describe, invoke, install, prompt library) and provides a specific flow. The purpose is unambiguous and resource-focused.

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 guidance on when to use invoke vs. install ('prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', 'install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'), explains the core search→describe→invoke flow, and covers alternatives like list_tools and request_mcp. It also details credential/wallet handling and admin requirements for writes.

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, but description adds payment method, hosting, and LGPD responsibility, which provides value beyond the 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 but conveys key points (official source, payment, non-secret, legal responsibility). It's concise and front-loaded with the main 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?

No output schema, so description should describe the return. It does not mention what the response contains (e.g., certificate status). Also lacks details about parameter requirements (which one to provide). It gives some context but insufficient for full usage.

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 0% description coverage invented parameters CPF and CNPJ have no explanation. The description does not mention these parameters at all, leaving the agent to guess what inputs are needed. With zero coverage, description must compensate, but it fails.

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 consult a negative debt certificate from Betim municipality's official source. It identifies the specific resource (Certidão Negativa de Débitos) and the verb

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 states it queries official sources and is not confidential, but it doesn't explicitly mention when to use it vs alternatives. It does clarify that it's a paid service with prepaid credit)Skip

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 idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a requirement for the conversation array but does not disclose side effects like ticket creation or notifications. It offers limited transparency beyond the 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and a brief usage tip. It is concise and well-structured.

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 output schema and simple nature of the tool, the description provides enough context for basic usage. It covers purpose and a key input hint, but does not elaborate on all parameters or expected outcomes.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning to the 'conversation' parameter by mentioning it as an array for reproduction, but does not clarify 'message' or 'context'. It partially compensates.

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 report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback. This distinguishes it 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?

It provides guidance on what to include (conversation array for reproduction), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the purpose is distinct enough that the usage is 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 provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it reports both platform and adapter versions, which is additional context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded and conveys the key information without any waste.

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 tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, but annotations provide safety hints. The description is adequate for a simple info tool, though it could mention whether it returns version strings or structured data, but the lack of output schema makes this less critical.

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 the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by specifying what version information is provided (platform and adapter), which is useful beyond the empty schema. Baseline for zero parameters is 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. It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like toolkit_info, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other info tools, but the verb 'show' and resource 'versions' make purpose clear.

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 is for checking version information but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like toolkit_info. Context signals show no exclusions, but no explicit guidance is provided beyond the purpose.

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, indicating a safe read operation. The description goes beyond annotations by listing exactly what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), adding valuable behavioral context. No contradictions found.

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 purpose and lists exactly what is returned. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler. It is 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?

For a simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the user needs to know: what the tool does and what information it provides. There is no complexity that requires further elaboration, and the detail about MCPs and accounts is sufficient for the agent to select and invoke it 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 per the rubric, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters because there are none, and the schema is empty (100% coverage). This 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 returns the current toolkit state with specific elements (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect or marketplace, which have 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 description implies this is for checking toolkit status, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives. While siblings like authenticate or connect have clear different scopes, the description does not explicitly state 'use this to get an overview' or contrast with them. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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