Prefeitura MT Cuiabá: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it opens a browser login, returns a link when called with no args, and exhibits session-only behavior when a token is provided. This goes beyond the annotations (idempotentHint, readOnlyHint) by explaining the actual authentication workflow.

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, information-dense paragraph. It's front-loaded with the tool's purpose and quickly moves through usage options. While not overly long, it could be structured with bullets for even faster scanning, but overall it's 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 token parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: authentication method, token handling, and comparison of persistent vs. session-based login. It could mention what happens after successful authentication (e.g., success message or stored session), but this is minor.

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 lists a 'token' string, but the description adds critical semantics: using { token: "<jwt>" } for session login and no-arg calls for generating a link. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 an MCP.AI server for IDE agents. It uses specific verbs like 'log in' and 'copy the access token', and names the resource ('MCP.AI', 'server's config'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (connect, toolkit_info) by focusing on authentication 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?

Explicit guidance on when to use this tool: after user pastes a token, or without arguments to get a login link. It also explains the recommended persistent configuration method versus the session-only approach, effectively covering when and how to use each.

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 and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable conditional behavior: what happens when all providers are connected (authenticated:true, empty pending[]) vs. missing credentials (returns connect_url). This goes beyond the structured hints.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every clause adds detail about expected return values under different conditions. 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?

Given no parameters and strong annotations, the description fully explains the tool's behavior in the key scenarios (success and missing credentials). No additional context is needed for an agent 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema provides no meaningful semantics. Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameter 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 'Returns connection status and URLs,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status retrieval.

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) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no guidance on exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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 behavioral traits beyond the minimal annotations: 'invoke works even when the MCP is NOT installed', 'if the MCP needs a credential/login, invoke returns a connect link; if it is paid and the wallet is empty, invoke returns a checkout/top-up link (the user opens it, then you retry)', and 'Writes (install/uninstall/subscribe/cancel and the one-off install behind invoke) require workspace owner/admin.' It also states that search/describe flag installed status. These details are not present in the annotations, adding significant value.

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 every sentence adds value. It is well-structured: purpose, core flow, key distinctions, permission notes, and prompt library section. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. While it could be slightly more concise by splitting into bullet points, the density is appropriate for a multi-action tool with 14 actions and 23 parameters.

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 (23 params, no output schema), the description covers the full workflow, error handling (credential and payment links), permission requirements, and the separate prompt library. It explains when to use invoke vs install and how to handle connect/checkout scenarios. No output schema exists, but the description explains notable return types (connect link, checkout link). For this tool, the description is remarkably 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 schema has 23 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the 'action' parameter (all enum values and their purposes), and mentions key parameters like mcp_id, tool_id, and arguments in context. However, it does not describe every parameter (e.g., limit, query, prompt_vars, cancel_reason) individually, relying on the schema defaults. Given the breadth, it covers the most important ones, but a few remain unaddressed, so not a 5.

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 purpose as 'the official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It enumerates the distinct actions (search, describe, invoke, install, etc.) and separates the prompt library functionality, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, 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 explicit guidance on when to use each action: 'Core flow: action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns one MCP's full profile ... → invoke RUNS that tool.' It contrasts invoke vs install ('prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'), explains when to use list_tools, and covers the prompt library use cases. It also mentions prerequisites like auth and payment handling.

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 readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description adds important behavioral context: the service is hosted on the platform, requires no platform credentials, charges per query via prepaid credit, and cites LGPD data controller responsibilities. This enriches the tool's operational profile.

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 compact three-sentence paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then adds operational and privacy details. Each sentence earns its place, though the length could be slightly trimmed.

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 low complexity, the description covers the main purpose, payment, and privacy aspects, but it lacks information about the return format (since no output schema exists) and does not explain the query parameters. This leaves minor gaps for an agent.

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% and the description never mentions the cpf or cnpj parameters. It does not explain that one of these identifiers is needed for the consultation, nor does it clarify their meaning or constraints.

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 'Certidão Negativa de Débitos, consulta em fonte oficial' (Negative Debt Certificate, consultation in official source) for Prefeitura MT Cuiabá. This distinguishes it from the generic sibling 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?

The description implies usage when a negative debt certificate from Cuiabá is needed but does not explicitly state when-not to use it or mention alternative tools. It provides operational context like prepaid credit but no explicit selection 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, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a behavioral instruction to 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction,' which is useful context but doesn't disclose other side effects. Since annotations cover the basic safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 very concise—two sentences—and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence adds a necessary instruction. Every word contributes to understanding the tool, 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?

The tool is simple (3 flat parameters, no output schema), and annotations are provided. The description covers the core action and the key reproduction requirement, but omits parameter explanations for 'message' and 'context'. This is a noticeable gap, but the tool's simplicity and the annotation coverage keep it from being severely 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanations. It explains only the 'conversation' parameter (describing it as an array for reproduction) but leaves 'message' and 'context' unaddressed. 'message' is required, and 'context' has a default but no elucidation. This partial explanation is insufficient given zero schema-level 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it's distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or marketplace. It also adds a concrete instruction about including the conversation array, which reinforces the 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 when to use the tool ('if you have a bug, missing feature, or feedback'), which provides clear context. It doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but none of the sibling tools serve the same purpose, so no differentiation is needed. This falls between implied and explicit 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 provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond stating the action, but since annotations cover the key aspects, this is acceptable. It does not add details about output format or potential side effects, but none are expected.

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 directly conveys the purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is completely sufficient. It fully explains what the tool does, and no additional context is needed for an agent to use 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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter-specific semantics because there are none, and the schema confirms this with an empty properties object. The tool is self-contained.

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 shows current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb ('show') and a specific resource ('versions'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which serve 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 implicitly indicates when to use the tool (when version information is needed). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but given the simplicity and unique purpose among siblings, the usage 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?

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds value by specifying what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts). This provides behavioral context about the output without contradicting the safety profile.

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 action ('Returns') and the object ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates specifics. Every word adds value, with no fluff 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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains the return content: installed MCPs, their connection status, associated accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is sufficiently complete for a low-complexity, zero-parameter status tool, and annotations cover the behavioral 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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and there is no parameter information to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the return value rather than parameter semantics.

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 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state'), listing concrete components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which perform actions rather than report state.

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 conveys that the tool provides an overview of the toolkit's state, making it obvious for status-checking use cases. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough that an agent would know when to invoke it, especially given the sibling list.

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