Prefeitura MG Pará de Minas: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

Annotations indicate idempotent, non-destructive, not read-only. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the token's persistence (permanent if added to config, session-only if pasted) and the two-step flow (browser login → copy token). This goes beyond the structured 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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core action, the second provides the best-practice and alternative. All information is essential and front-loaded.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers all necessary details: the login flow, token usage, persistence, and invocation patterns. Nothing essential is missing.

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 zero description coverage, but the description fully explains the 'token' parameter: it's a JWT pasted by the user, and it clarifies that calling with no args returns a login link. This compensates entirely for the missing schema 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 clearly states the action: logging in to the MCP.AI server via browser and token. It specifies two distinct modes (permanent via config header, session-only via token argument), which sharply distinguishes 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?

Provides explicit instructions for when to use the tool (to authenticate) and how to use it (either pasting a token or calling with no args to get a link). It also contrasts permanent vs session login, offering alternatives for token handling. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, though that's implicitly obvious.

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 value by explaining conditional outputs (authenticated:true vs. connect_url) and the presence of a pending[] field, which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand what to expect.

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 and front-loaded with the core function in the first sentence, followed by two conditional behaviors. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully explains return values in the two relevant scenarios. It covers the primary states an agent would encounter, making it complete for guiding correct invocation and interpretation.

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% (no properties), so the description adds no parameter meaning. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate since no additional clarification 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It further distinguishes behavior in different states (all providers connected vs. missing credentials), making it distinct from sibling tools like 'authenticate', which presumably initiates authentication rather than checking status.

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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. No direct reference to sibling tools or when not to use it, so it lacks explicit guidance on selecting this tool vs. others.

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 (readOnly false, openWorld true), so the description carries the burden. It discloses that invoke runs one-off even without installation, returns connect/checkout links, and that install makes permanent changes—none contradicting the annotations. This goes well beyond the structured fields.

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 dense single paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then details the flow and exceptions. It's fairly long but covers a complex multi-action tool; it could be broken into bullets but remains efficient and readable.

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 params, no output schema, and sparse annotations, this description is quite thorough. It explains the main actions, edge cases (auth, payment), and the prompt library. It doesn't detail return structures for each action, but given the breadth, it's adequate.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the main action parameter and a few associated ones (tool_id, mcp_id) through the flow, but doesn't detail many other params like limit, immediate, cancel_reason, prompt_* fields. It gives global context but not per-param semantics for all 23.

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 is the 'official mcp.ai marketplace' for discovering and running MCPs, and it distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining the core search→describe→invoke flow and the prompt library. It names the key actions and differentiates from other tools like authenticate and connect.

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 explicitly tells when to use invoke vs install (one-off vs permanent), when to use search/describe, and mentions that writes require owner/admin. It also covers the prompt library actions and says to use request_mcp when nothing fits, providing clear decision 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?

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses critical operational details: payment per query with prepaid credits, no platform credentials needed, data is not confidential, and LGPD responsibilities. This adds meaningful behavioral context that annotations do not cover.

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, compact paragraph that front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds relevant information (official source, payment, credentials, data sensitivity, legal responsibility) without unnecessary fluff.

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 cost, credentials, and legal context, but it omits essential usage nuances: whether cpf or cnpj is mandatory, if both can be provided, expected response format, or error handling. Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is only partially complete for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 description does not mention the parameters cpf or cnpj at all. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should explain what these identifiers are for and whether one or both are required. This is a major gap, leaving the agent without guidance on how to correctly populate the 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 function: querying a negative debt certificate (Certidão Negativa de Débitos) from the Prefeitura of Pará de Minas. It specifies the resource and scope, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace, which serve entirely 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 usage context such as prepaid credit requirement and lack of platform credentials, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It implies the use case (citizen-available data) but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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 the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds the useful reproduction-context guidance, but does not disclose side effects like ticket creation or deduplication. No contradiction with the annotations is present.

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 states the purpose and immediately gives the critical usage instruction. Every word earns its place; no filler or 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?

For a simple feedback tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It leaves the semantics of 'message' and 'context' unspecified and does not indicate what response should be expected or whether a ticket is created.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only explains 'conversation' (recent messages for reproduction), while the required 'message' and optional 'context' receive no semantic guidance beyond their names and defaults.

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?

Description uses specific verbs 'Report' and 'send' with clear resources (bug, missing feature, feedback), making the tool's scope immediately obvious. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like authenticate or connect by defining the reporting/feedback 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 clearly states when to use the tool (bug, missing feature, or feedback) and provides the key instruction to include the conversation array for reproduction. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references, 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?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no extra context about side effects, permissions, or edge cases, so it does not go beyond what annotations provide. It is consistent with annotations, so 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, clear sentence that conveys the entire purpose without redundancy or extraneous details. It is perfectly sized for the simplicity of the action.

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 that there is no output schema and the tool performs a straightforward read operation, the description is fully complete. It tells the agent exactly what to expect (version information) without needing to explain return values or behavior.

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 there is no ambiguity. The description correctly implies that no inputs are needed, and the schema provides complete coverage (100%) at this trivial level.

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 action (show) and the object (current MCP platform and adapter versions). It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and 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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios such as checking compatibility before upgrades or comparing with other version-related operations, leaving the agent to infer usage from the simple description.

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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, which covers the safety profile. The description adds value by enumerating the specific types of information returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools), providing useful context about the tool's scope.

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?

A single sentence that fully describes the tool's output with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and lists specific data items efficiently.

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 key return components, and combined with the readOnly annotation, provides a consistent picture for a stateless status tool. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently enumerates the information returned; no obvious missing context like time sensitivity or ordering.

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, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description clearly explains what the tool returns without needing to document 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies the resource ('current toolkit state') with concrete components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It clearly differentiates from siblings like authenticate or connect by focusing on status/overview rather than actions.

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 retrieving overall toolkit state, but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer it over siblings like show_version or connect. There are no direct exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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