Prefeitura MS Mundo Novo: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

Annotations declare idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds context beyond that: it explains that calling with no args yields a link, and that the config method is best for permanent access. It clarifies the two login modes and the token format, without contradicting any 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 compact yet comprehensive. It front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently explains the two usage options and the no-arg behavior. Every sentence adds value—no redundant phrases or filler.

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), the description fully covers behavior, usage scenarios, and the meaning of the token. No output schema is needed since the tool likely returns a link or confirmation, which the description hints at. It is complete for an agent to use effectively.

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 has one optional 'token' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that token is a JWT obtained after browser login, and how to use it in the call ('call with { token: "<jwt>" }'). It also clarifies that the parameter is optional and what happens without it, adding meaning beyond the 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 states the tool authenticates the user for MCP.AI IDE agents, with specifics: 'log in in the browser, copy the access token.' It also distinguishes from siblings like 'connect' by focusing on authentication flow, and mentions two distinct usage modes (config vs session). Verb+resource is specific and 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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use each method: adding the token to server config for a permanent non-expiring connection, or pasting it for a session-only login. Also explains calling with no args to get a link. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with sibling 'connect', so slightly below perfect.

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 specific behavioral details beyond the annotations, such as returning 'authenticated:true' and empty 'pending' when all providers are connected, and returning 'connect_url' and per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This provides clear expectations of the tool's 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 concise, consisting of two sentences that convey all essential information without unnecessary verbosity. It is well-structured and easy to understand.

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 are no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context by explaining the possible output states. It covers the main scenarios and aligns with the annotations, making it complete for the tool's purpose.

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 no parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively 100% as there are no parameters to describe. The description does not add parameter-specific information, but this is not necessary given the absence of parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: returning connection status and URLs. It goes beyond merely restating the name and provides specific details about the output, effectively distinguishing it from other tools.

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 it implicitly suggests it is for checking connection status. No direct exclusions or recommendations are provided, making it moderately clear.

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 the annotations, it discloses important behavioral traits: invoke can run an uninstalled MCP one-off, returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment gaps, performs an implicit install write, and requires owner/admin for writes. It also explains that prompt links open without login. These are not inferable from the basic 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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose and flow, and every sentence earns its place for such a complex multi-action tool. The main structural weakness is that it is a single long paragraph with no bullet separation or per-action breakdown.

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?

It covers the full marketplace lifecycle, auth/billing edge cases, install vs invoke, permission requirements, prompt library, and reporting/request actions. Some action-specific return shapes and parameters (resume, immediate, tier_slug, prompt_targets) remain underspecified, but the description is remarkably complete given the tool's breadth and the absence of an output schema.

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 compensates by explaining the action dispatcher semantics, the search→describe→invoke flow, and the roles of mcp_id/tool_id, prompt_vars, and action-specific flows. It does not document every parameter (e.g., immediate, tier_slug, prompt_targets), but the narrative meaningfully guides parameter selection for most actions.

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 this as the mcp.ai marketplace/catalog and runtime, and enumerates the request categories it handles ('find an MCP that does X', 'is there a tool for Y'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly covering the search/describe/invoke/install/prompt flows.

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 direct when-to-use guidance: use search→describe→invoke for one-off runs, use install only for permanent toolkit additions, and prefer invoke over install for occasional use. It also names alternatives like list_tools, report_bug, request_mcp, and the prompt actions, plus notes that writes require workspace owner/admin.

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, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond that: it is a paid per-query operation using prepaid credit, it retrieves non-confidential public data, and it assigns LGPD data-controller responsibilities to the client. This is meaningful additional context with no contradiction to 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 well-structured, starting with the primary purpose and then adding necessary payment and legal context. At about 80 words, it is fairly concise and every sentence adds relevant usage information. It could be slightly tighter but is appropriately sized for the 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?

For a seemingly simple query tool, the description provides context about the source, payment, and legal obligations, but it misses key operational details: parameter semantics, whether CPF and CNPJ are alternatives or both needed, and what the response contains. Since there is no output schema, these gaps reduce the tool's completeness for autonomous invocation.

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 does not mention them at all. There is no explanation of what values are expected, whether they are optional or mutually exclusive, or how they relate to the certificate query. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to guess the parameter meaning.

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 this tool performs a 'Certidão Negativa de Débitos' (negative debt certificate) query in an official source for Prefeitura MS Mundo Novo. The verb 'consulta' clearly indicates a query operation, and the specific resource and scope are unambiguous. It also clearly differentiates from the generic sibling platform tools like authenticate, connect, and 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 gives useful usage context: it accesses official public sources, requires prepaid credit, and does not need platform credentials. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling tools are unrelated, so differentiation is implicit rather than directly stated.

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?

With idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations, the description adds useful context by specifying that the conversation array should be included for reproduction. This goes beyond the annotations' implicit hints, explaining a behavioral expectation 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and then provides a key usage instruction. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 adequately informs the agent what to do and one key detail (conversation array). It's complete enough for the agent to execute successfully, though a bit more detail on expected outcome could improve it slightly.

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 explicitly explains the 'conversation' parameter's purpose, and 'message' is self-evident from the verb 'report'. However, the 'context' parameter is not described, leaving ambiguity. Partial compensation only, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'report' and the resources 'bug, missing feature, or send feedback', distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect. It explicitly tells the agent what action to take and the 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 instructs to include the conversation array for reproduction, providing clear context on how to use the tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though no direct alternatives exist among siblings. The guidance is sufficient for basic 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, confirming safe read-only behavior. The description adds that it reports 'current' versions, giving a small but useful behavioral detail about live state.

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 with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and concise.

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 read-only tool, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. No output schema is present but return values are implied. Sibling tools don't complicate the picture enough to require more.

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 does not need to explain parameter semantics. Baseline for no parameters is 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 it shows current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb 'show' and defines a clear resource, distinguishing it 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 usage is implied: use when you need to check version info. However, no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and a sibling tool 'toolkit_info' might overlap in purpose.

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 and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by detailing the content of the returned state, which is not redundant with 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?

One concise sentence that clearly lists the included information without extraneous detail. Proper structure and focus.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description fully specifies what the tool returns. No missing information for a status check 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?

The tool has no parameters, so the description needs no parameter explanations. Schema coverage is 100% (empty parameter list).

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 and enumerates the specific information included (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate or 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 implies usage for checking status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of scenarios or exclusions.

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