Prefeitura MG Montes Claros: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint:true and readOnlyHint:false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the difference between permanent (config-based header) and session-only (token passed per call) authentication, and mentions that calling with no args returns a link. It does not contradict the annotations and gives useful state-modifying 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 a single, somewhat dense run-on sentence that mixes instructions to the user and the agent, covering multiple scenarios. It is not poorly sized but would benefit from clearer separation of ideas (e.g., bullet points or separate sentences). The flow is logical but not immediately scannable.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers both invocation modes (no args vs token), explains the two persistence options, and gives setup context. It lacks explicit error handling or return value documentation, but given the simplicity, it is fairly complete for an agent to use 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?

Despite the schema having 0% described params, the description thoroughly explains the optional 'token' parameter: it is a JWT, it is provided after the user pastes it, and omitting it triggers a different behavior (returning a login link). The description also clarifies the exact format for invocation with the token object, going far beyond the bare 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 indicates the tool handles authentication for IDE agents (specifically mentioning token exchange), which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'marketplace'. It mentions the resource (authentication/token) and an implicit action (obtain/use token), though the verb is somewhat buried in the flow description ('log in', 'copy', 'paste'). The purpose could be stated more directly, but it's discernible.

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 context on when to use the tool (for IDE agent authentication) and explains two usage flows (permanent config vs session-only), which implies when each might be preferred. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool, and there is no mention of prerequisites or fallback actions.

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the two conditional response shapes: authenticated:true with empty pending[], or missing credentials returning toolkit and per-install 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, and every sentence provides useful behavioral context. No filler or redundant wording.

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 status tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers the two possible response scenarios and the meaning of those results. The agent has enough information to invoke and interpret 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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but there is nothing to document.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('connection status and URLs'), and the conditional behavior distinguishes it from sibling 'authenticate', which likely initiates an auth flow. This is a clear and unambiguous purpose.

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 connection status by describing two possible return states, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus sibling tools like 'authenticate'. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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 discloses critical behaviors beyond the annotations: invoke works on non-installed MCPs, returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment, and writes require owner/admin. It also explains installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace flags. The annotations (readOnlyHint: false, etc.) are consistent, and the description adds rich detail 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 lengthy but well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then explains the flow, key behaviors, and separates the MCP and prompt-library components. It is dense without redundancy, though it could be tightened by splitting into bullet points for 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?

Given no output schema and high param count, the description covers the main actions and their return behaviors (e.g., describe returns a full profile, invoke returns links for auth/payment, list_tools lists callable tools). It does not describe outputs for every action (e.g., subscribe/cancel) but provides enough for the primary flows.

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 params and zero schema descriptions, the description carries the full burden. It explains how action determines which parameters matter (e.g., query for search, mcp_id for describe/install, tool_id and arguments for invoke, prompt_slug for get_prompt). However, not all parameters are explicitly mapped, and some defaults (like immediate, tier_slug) are left implicit.

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 the official mcp.ai marketplace, covering both catalog discovery and tool execution, and explicitly enumerates its actions (search, describe, install, invoke, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate or report_bug by its comprehensive scope as the central hub for MCPs and prompts.

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 guidance, outlining the core action flow (search → describe → invoke) and clearly stating when to use install vs invoke, when to use subscribe/cancel, and how to handle the prompt library. It also includes query examples like 'find an MCP that does X', giving concrete trigger scenarios.

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, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context: no platform credentials needed, pay-per-query with prepaid credit, data is public (not confidential), and LGPD responsibility for the client. This goes 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 structured with the purpose first, followed by operational and legal context. It is a bit verbose with four sentences, but each sentence adds distinct value (purpose, payment/credentials, data nature, LGPD), and there is no redundancy.

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 purpose, payment, credential requirements, and legal aspects, but leaves parameter semantics entirely unexplained and does not describe the return value or expected output, which is especially problematic given there is no output schema. For a tool with 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is 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 schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of them (cpf, cnpj, nome_requerente, cadastro_imobiliario). It fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving the agent without guidance on what values to provide.

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 resource ('Certidão Negativa de Débitos') and the specific municipality ('Prefeitura MG Montes Claros'), with the verb 'consulta' clearly indicating a query operation. It distinguishes itself from generic platform siblings.

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 negative debt certificates but does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. Operational details like prepaid credit and no credentials are given, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance.

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 idempotentHint=true, readOnly=false, and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context that the conversation array is used for reproduction, which is useful behavioral information. However, it does not disclose what happens after reporting (e.g., ticket creation, external submission), so it stays at a moderate level.

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 filler or repetition. Every clause earns its place: the purpose, the alternative uses, and the key reproduction instruction. It is concise without sacrificing needed guidance.

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 low-complexity tool with three simple parameters and solid annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the tool's purpose and the most important input requirement (conversation). The lack of an output schema is acceptable because this is a feedback/report action, not a data-fetching 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains conversation as containing recent messages for reproduction, but it does not clarify message or context semantics. Since two of three parameters remain effectively undocumented, the description only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 action and resource: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from unrelated siblings like show_version and authenticate. It is not a tautology and adds concrete scope.

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 for when to use the tool: for bugs, missing features, or general feedback. It also gives a practical usage instruction: include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but none of the siblings are relevant 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. The description adds specific context about what is shown (both platform and adapter versions), aligning with the annotations without redundancy.

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 resource. There is no superfluous 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 output schema, and complete annotations, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know 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 tool has zero parameters, so the description is not expected to clarify parameter semantics. Baseline score of 4 applies.

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 with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It is distinct from 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 implies usage when version information is needed, but it does not explicitly mention when to use or avoid this tool relative to alternatives. It provides clear context without 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 provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering behavior. The description adds what information is returned, which is consistent with annotations. No contradictions, and no extra behavioral disclosures needed for a read-only state 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 concise sentence that fully conveys the tool's output without unnecessary detail or repetition of the name/title.

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 tool, the description is sufficient. It tells exactly what information is returned. Could optionally mention that it requires no input or has no side effects, but annotations already cover readOnly and idempotence, so completeness is high.

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 (schema properties empty, 100% coverage), so there is nothing to explain. The description correctly indicates no inputs are 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 returns the current toolkit state, specifying exactly what information is provided (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts). This verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect, authenticate, and 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 implies usage: it's the go-to for checking toolkit status. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, but the context of sibling tools (actions like connect, authenticate) makes it clear this is informational. A brief note about it being a read-only query could enhance clarity, but it's sufficiently clear.

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