Prefeitura MS Chapadão do Sul: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

The description discloses the side effects: permanent config change (adding header) vs session-only login. It also notes the token is non-expiring for permanent mode. However, it does not explicitly state the outcome of successful authentication (e.g., return value) or mention error handling, which could be more transparent. The idempotent annotation aligns with the description's implication that calling multiple times is safe.

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 bit long with multiple clauses and options, but it is well-structured and necessary to cover the two authentication modes. It could be slightly more concise, but it remains clear.

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 two authentication modes, the description covers the main usage scenarios and parameter meaning. It does not mention return values (since no output schema exists) or error cases, which would enhance completeness, but the core usage is adequately explained.

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 defines a 'token' string, and the description explains its meaning ('access token', '<jwt>') and that it is optional (call with no args to get link vs with token to authenticate). This fully compensates for the lack of schema description.

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 for authentication ('log in', 'authenticate') and distinguishes it from sibling tools (connect, marketplace, etc.) which are unrelated. It explicitly explains the two modes of use (permanent config vs session) and how it works.

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 instructions: 'Best' for permanent setup, 'Or' for session-only, and details how to call with or without the token. It also explains when each mode is appropriate, giving clear guidance on usage.

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 safe read behavior is covered. Description adds valuable conditional response semantics: `authenticated:true` with empty `pending[]` when all connected, and connect_url/per-install URLs when credentials missing, which isn't derivable from 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?

Two concise sentences. First states purpose, second elaborates conditional behavior. Every clause adds value, no 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 zero-parameter read-only status endpoint, the description covers the two main response scenarios (all connected vs missing credentials). It lacks explicit error/partial states, but given no output schema and simple nature, it's sufficient. The `connect_url` and per-install URLs are mentioned, which is enough for an agent to use.

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, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. Per rubric, baseline is 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter details.

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?

Clear verb 'Returns' with specific resource 'connection status and URLs.' Distinguishes from sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status, not the auth flow.

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?

Description gives behavioral context for when providers are connected vs missing credentials, but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over the sibling 'authenticate' tool. Context implies it's for checking status rather than initiating auth, but no explicit alternatives 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?

Annotations only set openWorldHint=true etc., but the description adds crucial behavioral details: invoke runs one-off without installation, returns connect links for missing credentials, checkout links for empty wallet, and that writes require owner/admin. This goes well beyond annotations and fully discloses side effects and constraints.

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 each sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the core flow and then elaborates on specifics. It could be more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it is not redundant or wasteful. It appropriately matches the tool's complexity.

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 high complexity (23 parameters, 14 actions, no output schema), the description provides a complete mental model: the catalog+run flow, invocation vs installation semantics, auth/payment flows, permissions, and the prompt library. It gives enough context for an agent to operate successfully without additional documentation.

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 'action' parameter and its enum values, and mentions key params like mcp_id, tool_id, arguments in the flow context. However, many parameters (limit, query, message, immediate, tier_slug, prompt_vars, conversation, etc.) are not individually described, leaving ambiguity. It covers the most important ones but not exhaustively.

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 states the tool's role: the official mcp.ai marketplace catalog and runner. It clearly lists the core flow (search → describe → invoke) and distinguishes it from siblings by covering both catalog and prompt library functionality. It is specific and comprehensive.

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 each action should be used: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', and 'list_tools lists what is callable right now.' It also explains prerequisites like owner/admin for writes and payment/credential handling, making it clear when to use vs. avoid.

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 and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, is paid via pre-paid credits, and accesses official non-confidential data. It also mentions LGPD compliance, which is relevant for data handling. However, it does not describe the return format or error 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 a single block of text with no line breaks, but it is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes necessary context about payment and data handling without excessive verbosity. It could be structured better, but it is not overly long.

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 relative simplicity (2 optional parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the official source, payment model, and data privacy context. It could add more detail on parameter usage or return structure, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the operation.

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 mentions 'consulta' but does not describe the parameters 'cpf' and 'cnpj' explicitly. Although the tool name suggests it queries debts by CPF or CNPJ, the description does not state that these parameters are alternative identifiers or how they are used. Thus, it adds minimal value beyond what the parameter names imply.

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 the tool performs a 'Certidão Negativa de Débitos' consultation for the municipality of Chapadão do Sul, using an official source. It uses a specific verb ('consultar') and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on municipal debt certificates.

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 mentions the use case: checking negative debt certificates from official Brazilian sources. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or when to use alternatives, but the context is implied by the tool's specificity. It does not compare with sibling tools, but the sibling list is generic (e.g., access validation, reporting).

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 safety/intent hints (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true). The description adds the meaningful behavioral note about including conversation messages for reproduction, but it does not disclose what happens after reporting (e.g., ticket creation, notifications), and it does not address how the idempotent hint should be interpreted in the context of duplicate reports.

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-loading the core purpose first, then a single targeted usage instruction. Every word earns its place with 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 3-parameter, no-output tool with annotations, the description gives enough to invoke it: purpose and reproduction guidance. It would be slightly more complete with a note about what the user should expect as a response, but the tool's simplicity and existing annotation coverage keep the gap minimal.

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 does explain the 'conversation' parameter ('include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'), which adds value beyond the raw schema. However, it does not clarify the required 'message' parameter or the optional 'context' parameter, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 starts with a specific, action-oriented verb ('Report') and names the full scope: a bug, a missing feature, or feedback. It clearly distinguishes this tool from its unrelated siblings (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) by establishing it as the feedback channel.

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 sentence 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback' provides explicit context for when this tool should be used. It also instructs users to include the conversation array for reproduction, which is practical guidance, though it does not explicitly state when to avoid using the tool or list 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, indicating a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds minimal additional behavioral context beyond confirming the read-only nature, but it does not contradict 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?

A single, concise sentence that fully captures the tool's purpose without filler or redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded 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?

This is a trivial, parameterless, read-only tool. With annotations covering the safety profile and the description explaining exactly what versions are shown, there is no missing context or ambiguity.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying that it reports both platform and adapter versions, clarifying the output scope beyond the empty input 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 specific verb 'Show' with the clear resource 'current MCP platform and adapter versions.' This clearly defines what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like marketplace 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when version information is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's scope is self-evident and simple.

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 value by specifying exactly what state is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts), which is beyond the structured annotations. No contradictions noted; the description aligns with the read-only, idempotent nature.

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 primary action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and efficiently enumerates the specific components. Every phrase adds 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 tool with zero parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description fully addresses what the tool returns and its purpose. It is complete for an agent to decide when to invoke it and what to expect, especially given the low complexity.

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 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since none exist. It does not contradict the schema, and no further information 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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource 'current toolkit state' with concrete details: 'installed MCPs, their connection status, the accounts connected to each one, and how many catalog tools each exposes.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'show_version' or 'marketplace' by focusing on state inspection.

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 through its content (e.g., 'installed MCPs', 'connection status') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or alternative-mentioned. It falls into 'implied usage' as it's clear this is for introspection, but no direct guidance is given.

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