Prefeitura PB Campina Grande: Multas

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

The description discloses key behavioral consequences beyond the annotations: the config-header method creates a permanent/non-expiring connection, while pasting a token is session-only. It also explains browser login and that no-args returns the link. It does not mention error handling or token validation, but for an auth tool this is strong context.

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?

Three sentences, every sentence adds essential information: audience, browser login flow, permanent config option, session-only option, and the exact token invocation. 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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains both login paths, token format, and no-args behavior. Minor gap is the lack of explicit return/error details, but the phrase 'get the link' implies the primary output.

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 an optional string 'token' with no description (0% coverage), so the description carries the full burden. It fully compensates by explaining the token is a JWT, how to obtain it, and how to pass it: '{ token: "<jwt>" }', plus the no-args behavior to get the link.

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 IDE agent (Cursor, etc.) to MCP.AI via browser login and access token. It distinguishes the two main ways to use it—permanent server config header vs session-only pasted token—and specifies the no-args behavior to get the login link.

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 guidance on when to use the config-header approach (permanent, non-expiring) versus the session-only paste approach. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'connect', but the usage context is 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?

Annotations already cover the readOnly and non-destructive nature. The description adds valuable state-dependent behavior: returns authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent anticipate response variations.

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 composed of two concise sentences. The first delivers the core purpose, and the second adds conditional details without any 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema, strong annotations), the description covers all essential behaviors and return states, including the shape of the response in different scenarios. No significant information gaps remain.

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%. With no parameters, the description need not explain parameter meaning; the baseline of 4 applies, and the description adequately explains the tool's behavior.

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' with the resource 'connection status and URLs', clearly indicating the tool's function. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the focus on status distinguishes it from tools like 'authenticate'.

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 clear context for when to use: to check if all providers are connected or obtain connection URLs when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusionary cases, so it stops short of 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?

Annotations are minimal (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, no destruction), so description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: invoke works without installation, returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment, write actions require admin, and flags installed status. However, it does not explicitly state what happens to existing tools or potential side effects beyond these points.

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 long, dense paragraph with no structured formatting (lists or headings). While it front-loads the purpose, it quickly becomes a wall of text that is hard to scan. Every sentence provides value, but the lack of structure and excessive length hurt usability.

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 complexity (23 params, many actions, no output schema), the description provides a broad overview of functionality and workflows, including billing, auth, and installation nuances. However, it omits explicit return-value descriptions per action and does not detail parameter semantics, leaving gaps for successful 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?

With 23 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameter usage. It only implicitly explains action-related concepts (e.g., action=search, invoke), but does not explicitly describe parameters like limit, query, immediate, tier_slug, or any prompt_* parameters. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly populate all 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 it is the official marketplace for discovering and running MCPs, with a specific core flow (search→describe→invoke) and covers all actions. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the central tool for MCP discovery/execution, while siblings like authenticate, report_bug, and show_version have narrower roles.

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 install vs invoke ('prefer invoke for a single/occasional use'), when to use list_tools, subscribe/cancel, request_mcp, and explains the flow for capability requests. Also notes write operations require workspace owner/admin, giving clear context for 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?

The description goes beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) by disclosing that queries are paid via prepaid credit, hosting details, and data source from official Brazilian agencies (the same available to citizens). It also includes LGPD compliance context, which adds meaningful behavioral traits not captured in 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, concise paragraph that efficiently conveys operational and legal details without unnecessary fluff. Each sentence adds value, covering payment, credentials, data source, and LGPD obligations, though the sentence structure could be slightly clearer with better punctuation.

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 read-only query with two string parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, source, cost, and legal compliance, which is mostly adequate. However, it omits critical input format details (e.g., plate format, RENAVAM length) and what the response contains, leaving some ambiguity 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?

The description provides zero information about the parameters 'placa' and 'renavam', and the schema coverage is 0%. Since the description was supposed to compensate, this is a significant gap—the agent gets no guidance on input formats or required formats beyond the property names.

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 the tool as a query for fines ('Multas, consulta') from Campina Grande PB, using the verb 'consulta' and specifying the official source. It distinguishes itself from generic siblings like 'connect' or 'authenticate' by naming the city and fine-related resource, though it could be more explicit about querying by plate and RENAVAM.

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 by mentioning 'pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago' (pay per query with prepaid credit) and 'sem credenciais da plataforma' (no platform credentials), which guides when to use it (no auth needed, paid). However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or provide exclusions, leaving the usage context implicit rather than explicit.

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 does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or any potential impact beyond the obvious act of reporting. Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds no extra 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 concise and directly to the point, with no unnecessary words or filler. Two sentences efficiently cover purpose and a key usage detail.

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, but the description omits any mention of return values, errors, or whether the action is repeatable. Given no output schema, the lack of such details makes it incomplete for a user.

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?

Only one parameter ('conversation') is mentioned in the description; the required 'message' and optional 'context' are not explained. With zero schema coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding parameter meanings.

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. It is specific and unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 a concrete usage instruction—to include the conversation array—but does not specify when to use this tool versus any alternative, nor provide context on prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing about return format, but that's acceptable given annotations cover behavioral traits.

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 is efficient. No wasted words, but it could be slightly more structured by clarifying output type, though it's already very brief.

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 is sufficient for a simple informational tool. It could mention how the version info is presented but is otherwise 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?

Since there are zero parameters, the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline is 4 for tools with no 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?

Clearly states the tool shows 'current MCP platform and adapter versions,' using a specific verb and resource. Differentiates from siblings like connect or authenticate, 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?

Description implies usage for checking versions but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like toolkit_info, which might serve a similar purpose. No explicit when-not or alternative 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds value beyond these annotations by specifying the content of the returned state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts), giving the agent useful behavioral context. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the key contents in a compact, ordered manner. There is no redundant wording or additional filler; every phrase conveys meaningful information.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description enumerates the four core pieces of state returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts), providing a clear picture of the tool's output. For a parameterless read-only info tool, this is sufficient and leaves no critical aspect unexplained.

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 an empty input schema, so the baseline is 4. The description neither needs nor attempts to explain parameters, as there is nothing to clarify. This is appropriate for a zero-parameter info tool.

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 identifies the resource as 'current toolkit state,' then enumerates the exact details returned (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and show_version, which serve distinct 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 implies when to use the tool (whenever the toolkit state is needed) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It lacks direct comparison with siblings such as authenticate or connect, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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