Prefeitura MG Nova Serrana: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the browser-based login flow, the option to use a permanent config header, and that calling with no args returns a link. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't specify error handling or invalid token behavior.

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 succinct yet comprehensive, using only two sentences to convey the purpose, two usage modes, and parameter semantics. It is front-loaded with the tool's intent and avoids any fluff, making it highly 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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers its usage. It explains both invocation patterns, the distinction between permanent and session logins, and the input parameter. No additional context is needed.

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 coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden for explaining the 'token' parameter. It does so clearly: the token is a JWT pasted by the user for session-only login, and omitting it yields a link, which gives the agent enough understanding to decide when to include it.

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, with explicit steps to obtain and provide an access token. It distinguishes from siblings like 'connect' by describing its specific authentication flow, making it unambiguous.

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 explicit instructions on when and how to use the tool: permanent vs session-only login, calling with 'token' or no args to get a link. This gives clear guidance on the two modes and the exact invocation patterns, which is more than adequate for an agent.

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 and idempotentHint: true, so safety traits are covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the conditional response logic (when all providers connected vs. when credentials are missing), including the meaning of fields (authenticated, pending[], connect_url, per-install URLs). This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear expectation of the tool's behavior in different states.

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 concise sentences. It front-loads the core function ('Returns connection status and URLs') and then provides conditional details. No fluff, no repetition, and every clause adds meaning. Perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the return values and conditions. It explains both success and failure scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials) and the fields returned. This is complete for a read-only status check, especially with annotations covering the safety profile.

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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it doesn't. The 4 reflects that no further parameter guidance is 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's function: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It identifies the specific resource (connection status) and distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' (which would perform authentication) and 'show_version' (which shows version info). The description also provides concrete output examples (authenticated:true, empty pending[], connect_url) making the purpose highly unambiguous.

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: to check connection status, especially when you need to know if authentication is complete or if credentials are missing. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings (e.g., 'use this instead of authenticate when you only need status'), but the context is clear enough. It lacks explicit exclusion guidance, which prevents a 5.

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 important side effects and hidden behaviors: invoke performs a one-off install behind the scenes, auth-gated or unpaid tools return user-action links, and write operations require workspace owner/admin. These details go well beyond the generic annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and align with them, adding genuine behavioral transparency.

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 and lengthy, but the tool itself is a broad multi-action dispatcher with 23 parameters and 15 sub-actions, so nearly every sentence adds necessary guidance. The flow-oriented structure (search → describe → invoke, then install, then prompt library) helps navigation, though bullet points or section breaks would improve scannability.

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 the core discovery-to-invocation loop, auth and wallet failure handling, permission requirements, one-off vs permanent install semantics, and the entire prompt-library subdomain. It does not explain return shapes, error/retry behavior, or some secondary parameters, and there is no output schema to compensate, but given the tool's complexity this is still a reasonably complete overview.

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 key dispatcher parameters: action values, mcp_id usage in search/describe, tool_id selection for invoke, arguments for the invoke call, and prompt_slug/prompt_vars for prompt-library actions. However, several parameters like limit, query, immediate, tier_slug, conversation, cancel_reason, and report_context remain undocumented, so the compensation is strong but not complete.

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 marketplace as the official in-platform catalog and execution path, with specific verbs for each sub-action: search, describe, invoke, install, list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, and the prompt-library actions. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by positioning report_bug as one of its own sub-actions and framing the tool as the central MCP discovery and running mechanism.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, especially 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT' and 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use.' It also explains conditional flows for auth and payment failures ('returns a connect link', 'returns a checkout/top-up link ... then you retry') and states that writes require workspace owner/admin, providing clear decision rules for the agent.

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 goes beyond annotations by disclosing key behavioral traits: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, is paid per query with prepaid credit, queries official sources, does not involve confidential data, and includes LGPD compliance responsibilities for the client. This adds substantial context beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint 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 dense paragraph that starts with the core purpose and then adds payment and legal context. It is not overly long, but some phrases (e.g., 'Hospedado pela plataforma, sem credenciais da plataforma') could be tightened. Overall, it is reasonably 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, payment model, and data privacy obligations, but it omits critical usage details such as how to specify the query (the CPF/CNPJ parameters) and what the expected output looks like. Since there is no output schema, this gap makes the tool harder to use correctly. It is adequate for a simple query but not fully 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?

The input schema has two optional string properties (cpf and cnpj), but the description provides no explanation of these parameters—it does not mention that users must supply a CPF or CNPJ to perform the query. With 0% schema description coverage and no elaboration in the text, the description fails to add any meaning beyond the raw property types.

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 Certidão Negativa de Débitos (negative debt certificate) for Prefeitura MG Nova Serrana from an official source. It uses a specific verb (consultar) and resource (CND), and it is distinct from generic sibling tools like authenticate or 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?

The description provides context on when to use the tool (to query official Brazilian sources for a negative debt certificate) and mentions that it is a paid, prepaid credit service with no platform credentials required. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives, but given the unique domain, the guidance is adequate.

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 readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, which aligns with the description's write operation. The description adds minimal behavioral detail beyond stating the action and a hint about conversation inclusion, but does not mention side effects, security, or consequences of calling it repeatedly.

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 conveys the purpose and a key usage detail without extraneous information. It is well-structured and easily 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?

Given the complexity of three parameters and no output schema, the description omits necessary context for two parameters ('message' and 'context') and does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret the result. It also lacks guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings, leaving the overall context incomplete.

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 0% description coverage. The tool description explains only the 'conversation' parameter (for reproduction) but leaves 'message' and 'context' undefined. Since 'message' is required, its purpose is unclear, and 'context' is entirely ambiguous. The description compensates for only one of three 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 states the tool's purpose: reporting bugs, missing features, or sending feedback. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which handle reporting.

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 a concrete usage instruction: 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' This is directly actionable. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, though the purpose makes it implicit.

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 and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't repeat that. It adds the specific detail that it shows both platform and adapter versions, which is slightly more than the title but not extensive. No mention of output format or edge cases.

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?

Single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb, no unnecessary words. Perfectly concise and 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 zero-parameter, read-only version tool, the description covers the essential purpose and annotations provide adequate safety context. Lacks any note about network behavior or output structure, but that's not critical for this trivial 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?

No parameters exist in the schema; schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is met—no additional parameter documentation is 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?

Specific verb 'Show' with clear resource 'MCP platform and adapter versions'. Distinguishes from siblings like 'authenticate' or 'connect' 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over others. Entirely missing usage context.

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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by detailing exactly what data will be returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts), which is beyond the generic annotation information and helps set response expectations.

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 entire description is one sentence that packs all necessary information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and lists specifics, making it easy to scan.

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, read-only) and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately specifies the return content. It covers the key aspects of toolkit state, making the tool's behavior predictable.

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 takes zero parameters, so parameter semantics are automatically satisfied. The description confirms the tool requires no input and returns state information, which aligns with the empty 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 uses the verb 'Returns' and specifies the exact resource ('current toolkit state') with a clear list of constituent elements (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly differentiates it from action-oriented siblings like connect or authenticate, and from 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the read-only nature and state-focused content imply it is for inspection. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred alternatives, leaving usage guidance implicit.

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