Prefeitura MG Contagem: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations by explaining the permanent vs session-only behavior, the configuration header approach, and the no-args link behavior. It also clarifies that the operation is idempotent (repeated token submissions are safe), consistent with idempotentHint. No contradictions 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 three sentences but information-dense, prioritizing the browser-login flow and then the two auth methods. Every sentence contributes a distinct piece of workflow guidance, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 auth tool with no output schema, the description covers the authentication workflow, both usage modes, token format, and the no-args behavior. It does not describe the success/failure return values, but the core interaction is fully specified.

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 only provides a 'token' string with no description, so the description carries the full burden. It compensates by specifying that token is a JWT pasted by the user, and that omitting it retrieves the login link, giving the agent complete parameter 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 clearly identifies the tool as an authentication mechanism for the MCP server, instructing IDE agents to log in via browser, copy the access token, and either configure it permanently or pass it as a JWT. This goes beyond the tool name by explaining the exact authentication resource and flow, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'marketplace'.

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 clear guidance on when to use each mode: adding the header for a permanent, non-expiring connection vs pasting a token for session-only login, and calling with no args to get the link. It does not explicitly rule out alternatives among siblings, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to decide.

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. The description adds useful behavioral details about the response structure (authenticated, pending[], connect_url, per-install URLs) in different states (all connected vs. missing credentials). This goes beyond annotations by explaining state-dependent output, but it could be richer, e.g., mentioning whether it may be stale or how to interpret the URLs.

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 core purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs'), then explains the two main states. Every sentence adds value with 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 the tool has no parametersring and annotations, the description is fairly complete for its simplicity. It explains the return values in two key scenariosanding the description of connect_url and pending[] is adequate. It lacks a note on error cases (e.g., network failures) but that is minor for a status 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description does not need to explain parameters; it explains the output well. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and it fully justifies that because it focuses on what the response will contain.

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 details about behavior when all providers are connected versus when credentials are missing. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status, not initiating authentication. It could be more explicit that it is a read-only status check, but the title and annotations help.

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 usage for checking connection status, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'authenticate'. It doesn't provide any when-not-to-use guidance or mention that it should be used before other operations. The context is clear enough for a status check, but it lacks explicit contrast with similar 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 are minimal (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true, etc.) but the description adds crucial behavioral context: invoke works without installing, returns connect/checkout links when needed, and writes require owner/admin. It also discloses that the tool includes prompt library functions. This goes beyond the annotations to explain side effects and conditions. Minor gaps: doesn't explicitly mention that some actions might be destructive or irreversible, but the description does cover the key behavioral traits.

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 that front-loads the key purpose, then explains the core flow, then covers special cases and permissions, finally mentioning the prompt library. Every sentence adds value with minimal fluff. It's long but appropriately so given the tool's complexity (14 actions, 23 params). The structure flows logically from discovery to execution to edge cases.

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 (multi-action hub, 23 params, no output schema, minimal annotations), the description covers the essential behavioral semantics: the search-describe-invoke flow, the difference between temporary and permanent installations, auth/payment handling, permissions, and the separate prompt library. It's remarkably complete for what it needs to explain. The only minor gap is lack of explicit error handling or edge cases, but the description covers the main usage patterns thoroughly.

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 covers 23 parameters but with 0% description coverage in the schema itself (no per-property descriptions). The tool description names many parameters in context (action, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, etc.) and explains their roles in the flow, but it does not systematically describe each parameter's format or semantics. Given the large parameter count and zero schema description, a baseline of 3 is fair: the description adds meaning for the core action parameters but does not fully illuminate all 23 parameters (e.g., 'conversation', 'immediate', 'tier_slug').

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 that this is the official mcp.ai marketplace, covering both discovery and execution of MCPs/tools. It lists the core actions (search, describe, invoke) and explicitly differentiates between temporary invocation and permanent installation. This is a specific verb+resource statement that distinguishes 'marketplace' from siblings like 'toolkit_info' or 'authenticate', 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use which action: use 'invoke' for one-off runs even if the MCP is not installed, use 'install' only to make permanent, prefer invoke over install for single use. It also clarifies that search/describe are for discovery, and lists special cases like connect links for credentials and checkout links for payment. It explains which actions require owner/admin. This is comprehensive guidance on when and how to use the tool versus 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: it's hosted by the platform, requires prepaid credits, returns non-confidential data, and clarifies the client's LGPD responsibilities. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 paragraph, reasonably concise, and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It includes necessary legal and payment context, though the LGPD sentence could be seen as slightly verbose for a tool description, but it's still 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the main context: official source, payment model, and data privacy. However, it lacks details on how to specify the target (cpf vs cnpj) and what the response contains, which would be helpful for a complete understanding.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters (cpf, cnpj) beyond their names. The description mentions the tool consults CND but doesn't clarify that cpf or cnpj are the identifiers to be provided, nor their format or mutual exclusivity. With zero coverage, the description should compensate but doesn'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 the tool queries official sources for Certidão Negativa de Débitos from Prefeitura MG Contagem, distinguishing it from generic tools. It specifies the resource (CND) and the official source, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, which are unrelated.

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 usage for consulting official Brazilian sources and mentions payment via prepaid credits, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It gives context about the platform hosting and LGPD compliance but lacks direct guidance on 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 idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral detail that the conversation array is needed for reproduction, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose what happens after reporting (e.g., confirmation, storage) or any rate limits, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage instruction is direct. It earns a high score for efficiency, though the second sentence could be slightly clearer about the conversation parameter's format.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and one parameter's usage. However, it omits semantics for the required 'message' parameter and the optional 'context' parameter, and provides no information about return behavior. It's adequate but not thorough.

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 explains the 'conversation' parameter (as an array with recent messages), but leaves 'message' (the only required param) and 'context' entirely unexplained. The agent gets no semantic guidance for the most important parameter, so this is a significant 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.), which serve entirely different functions. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 gives concrete usage guidance: 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' This tells the agent what to provide for effective use. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, the sibling tools are unrelated, so 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'current' version context but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations already convey. There is no 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and the expected output.

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, zero-parameter read-only version-checking tool, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool does. While there is no output schema, the expected return content is self-explanatory from the word 'versions.'

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 accepts zero parameters and the schema covers 100% of parameters, so there are no parameter details to document. This is the appropriate baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 uses the imperative verb 'Show' and specifies the exact resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and report_bug.

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/when-not guidance or alternative tool references, but the tool's purpose is immediately understood: use it to check current version information. With no overlapping sibling tools, the lack of explicit exclusions is acceptable.

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. The description adds meaningful context about exactly what state is inspected—installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts—without contradicting the annotations. No hidden side effects or additional behavioral caveats are needed for a simple status query.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and then enumerates the return details. Every word earns its place with 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?

For a no-parameter, read-only status tool, the description fully explains the return value categories in the absence of an output schema. It gives the user a concrete expectation of what 'toolkit state' means, making it complete and self-sufficient.

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 baseline is 4. No parameter documentation is needed, and the description appropriately focuses on the returned state rather than input 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state') with detailed output components: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version, which likely focuses on version info.

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 makes the tool's context obvious: use it whenever you need an overview of the toolkit's current state. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but its purpose is clear enough that a user would know when to invoke it versus other sibling tools.

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