Prefeitura MG Itaguara: Certidão Negativa de Econômico

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

Annotations indicate idempotent, non-destructive, non-read-only behavior. The description adds context about the authentication flow: how to obtain the token, that calling with no args returns a link, and that config-based auth is non-expiring. It does not contradict annotations and provides extra behavioral cues beyond them, though it omits explicit success/failure details.

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 slightly lengthy but every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's operation. It might be trimmed, but it is well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose. The wordiness is justified by the need to explain multiple usage paths.

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 there is no output schema, the description mentions that calling with no args returns a link, but does not explicitly state what happens when a token is passed (e.g., success confirmation). For an authentication tool, this is a minor gap, but the overall flow is clear enough for an agent to 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 schema only lists 'token' as a string with no description. The tool description thoroughly explains that it is a JWT to be pasted after the user logs in, and that omitting it triggers a link retrieval. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage and adds meaningful semantics beyond the type 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 to MCP.AI for IDE agents. It explains the login flow and how the token is used. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'marketplace' by explicitly focusing on authentication credentials and session management.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use this tool: for permanent auth via config header (alternative), or for session login by passing a token, or to retrieve a login link by calling with no args. It differentiates between permanent and session-only approaches, giving clear contextual guidance without ambiguity.

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 context beyond the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint annotations by detailing the exact return values and conditions (authenticated:true, empty pending[], connect_url). It accurately reflects the non-destructive, read-only nature 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, consisting of two sentences that cover purpose, conditions, and outputs without unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 covers both primary scenarios (all connected and missing credentials) but does not provide the exact JSON structure or format for return values. However, given the simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is largely 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?

There are no parameters in the input schema, so the description need not explain any. The description is complete regarding parameter handling, as no inputs 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, and distinguishes it from authentication by focusing on status checking. It provides specific return scenarios for connected and missing-credential cases.

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 is implied through the described outcomes (connected vs. missing credentials), but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like authenticate. No direct comparison or recommendation is given.

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 beyond annotations: invoke works even when the MCP is not installed, returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment, requires owner/admin for writes, and distinguishes one-off vs permanent installation. This adds substantial context to the bare annotation flags (readOnlyHint false, etc.) and does not contradict 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 long but highly structured with flow arrows and clear segmentation between MCP discovery/execution and the prompt library. It is front-loaded with purpose and uses every sentence to convey distinct information, though its density could be slightly reduced 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?

Given the tool's complexity (23 params, 14 actions) and lack of output schema, the description covers the overall workflow, key edge cases (auth, payment, owner/admin), and the prompt library. However, it leaves some actions like 'resume' and 'prompt_targets' unexplained and does not detail return structures beyond mentioning links and profiles. Still, it provides a strong conceptual map for the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain individual parameters like 'action', 'mcp_id', 'tool_id', or 'arguments' in detail. It provides high-level flow but fails to give concrete semantics for the 23 parameters, leaving the agent to guess how to fill them for each action. The description is too high-level to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 names the tool as 'the official mcp.ai marketplace' and details its core functions (search, describe, invoke, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by enumerating sub-actions and the prompt library, making it unmistakable what this tool does and how it relates to alternatives like report_bug or 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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use invoke vs install ('prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'), and outlines the core flow (search→describe→invoke). It also explains when to use subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, and the prompt library actions, offering clear context and exclusions.

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. The description adds valuable context: the data is not confidential, the client is the data controller under LGPD, and payment is via prepaid credit. This goes beyond what annotations convey 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 few sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes essential operational details (payment, credentials, LGPD). It is not overly verbose, 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 query tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, payment, and data sensitivity, but misses parameter details and any explanation of the result format or potential combinations of cpf/cnpj. This is a moderate gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 two parameters (cpf, cnpj) with no descriptions, and the description makes no mention of them. With 0% schema coverage, the description should explain these parameters but does not. It leaves the agent unclear on how to fill them or whether they are alternatives.

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: consulting a 'Certidão Negativa de Econômico' (negative economic certificate) from Itaguara MG via an official source. It uses specific verb ('consulta') and resource, and distinguishes it from generic sibling tools like authenticate 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?

The description provides usage context: payment is required with prepaid credit, no platform credentials are needed, and it accesses only non-confidential official data. While not explicitly comparing to alternatives, the sibling tools are unrelated, so this is adequate guidance for when to use it.

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 are minimal: readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. They don't provide much safety context beyond indicating this is not read-only or destructive. The description adds value by stating it should include a conversation array for reproduction, which is a behavioral requirement. It also clarifies it's for bug reports and feedback. However, it doesn't disclose what happens after sending (e.g., whether it creates a ticket, sends an email, etc.). Since annotations are sparse, the description shoulders more burden, but it does add meaningful context, so a 4 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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it packs two key pieces of information: the purpose and the requirement to include a conversation array. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Report' and the resource. While it could be slightly more detailed, it is not overlong. However, it could be structured better by separating the action from the reproduction instruction, but it's still near optimal.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations. The description covers the purpose and highlights the key reproduction parameter. It doesn't explain the 'context' parameter, but it does provide sufficient guidance for an agent to use the tool correctly. Given the simplicity, a 4 is justified; it adequately informs the agent without over-explaining.

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 for parameter meaning. The description mentions the 'conversation' parameter by name, explaining that it should contain recent messages for reproduction. It also implies the 'message' parameter is the bug/feedback text. The 'context' parameter is not mentioned, but the description is short and provides some semantic clarity beyond the bare schema. Given the low coverage, this is a relatively good effort for 3 parameters, earning a 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's purpose: to report bugs, missing features, or send feedback. It also specifies that the conversation array should be included. This is more specific than a mere restatement, but it does not distinguish it from potential sibling tools like 'marketplace' or 'toolkit_info' that might also accept feedback, so it doesn't earn a perfect 5.

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 reporting issues or sending feedback) but does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or mention any alternative tools. The sibling list includes 'authenticate' and 'connect', which are different in purpose, but no explicit exclusion is provided. This is adequate guidance but not comprehensive.

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, which cover the tool's safety profile. The description adds little beyond restating the purpose (showing versions). It does not mention potential network calls or other caveats, but given the no-side-effect nature, this is acceptable. It does not contradict any annotations (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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function without any fluff. Every word is purposeful, and it uses front-loaded structure for quick scanning.

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, parameterless version-checking tool, the description is complete. It tells the user exactly what to expect (platform and adapter versions) without requiring an output schema. No additional context is needed, and there are no hidden behaviors to disclose.

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 coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools, and the description correctly avoids adding irrelevant parameter details. No improvement needed.

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: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It uses a specific verb ('Show') and a clear resource ('versions'), and unambiguously distinguishes itself from sibling tools like connect or marketplace, which have different purposes. There is no ambiguity or 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?

While the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, it provides clear context on when to use the tool: whenever version information is needed. For a trivial read-only tool with no side effects, this is sufficient. A higher score would require explicit alternative guidance, which is unnecessary here.

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 cover read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description's job is to add context beyond that. It does so by specifying what state components are returned, providing richer expectations. No contradictions, and no additional caveats (e.g., latency) are needed for this simple informational 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists specifics. Every segment adds value, with no redundant or filler text.

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 parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward informational task, the description fully specifies what the tool returns. It covers all relevant aspects of the state without omission, making it complete for an agent to predict outcome.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies since the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter docs. It adds no param-specific meaning, but that is irrelevant here.

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 a clear resource 'current toolkit state', then enumerates the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate', 'connect', or 'marketplace', 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?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool (to check toolkit state), but it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or reference alternative tools. Given the sibling set is diverse and the tool's role is obvious, the implied guidance is sufficient, though not explicit.

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