Prefeitura PR Francisco Beltrão: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

Description discloses behavior beyond annotations: explains the two modes (no args returns a link, with token performs session login), the benefit of config header (permanent/no expiry), and the session-only nature of pasting. No contradiction with annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false).

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?

Description is moderately sized but well-structured, with clear instructions and a logical flow (login, copy token, best practice, alternative). It front-loads the purpose and uses semicolons and examples effectively. Slightly verbose but all sentences add value.

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 complexity of an authentication tool, it covers the essential flow: how to initiate, how to pass token, and the difference between permanent and session-based auth. It does not explicitly state return values, but the 'get the link' phrase implies the output for the no-arg case. Adequate 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 only parameter 'token' is explained in detail: it is a JWT to be used for session-only login, and it is optional (no args retrieves a link). This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema, which has no 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?

Description clearly states it authenticates the IDE agent, with explicit verb 'log in' and specific methods (browser login, token paste). Distinguishes from siblings like 'connect' by focusing on authentication flow and token handling.

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 on when to use each mode: best to add token to config for permanent connection, or paste token for session-only, with details on how to call (with or without args). Clearly explains alternatives and prerequisites.

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?

While annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, the description adds concrete conditional output details such as returning authenticated:true with empty pending[] or connect_url and per-install URLs. This provides agent-useful behavioral context beyond the flat annotation 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 compact and front-loaded: two sentences with a clear purpose first, then condition-specific details. No wasted words, ideal for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the key return states and their meanings. It lacks a detailed specification for partial-connection scenarios, but it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward status-checking utility.

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 the schema is effectively fully covered (100% schema coverage, only an empty object). The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter explanation 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: returning connection status and URLs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate by focusing on status inspection rather than authentication initiation.

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 usage context by describing what happens in two key scenarios: when all providers are connected and when credentials are missing. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the behavior is specific enough to understand when this tool is appropriate.

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?

Extensive behavioral disclosure beyond annotations: invoke runs MCPs one-off without installing or bloating the toolkit, requires workspace owner/admin for writes (install/uninstall/subscribe/cancel), returns connect links for credentials and checkout/top-up links for payments, and marks installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace in search/describe. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false.

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?

Every sentence carries substantive value — auth flows, one-off invoke semantics, permission requirements, and the prompt library distinction are all packed in. However, the content is delivered as a single dense wall of text without structural breaks or bullets for the 14 distinct actions, making it hard for an agent to parse quickly despite being front-loaded with purpose.

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 complex 23-param, 14-action orchestration tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It addresses edge cases (invoke on uninstalled MCPs, empty-wallet checkout, credential connect links, owner/admin permission restrictions) though return-value expectations are unspecified and some sub-actions (resume, cancel_reason/cancel_comment semantics) get no detail.

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 and 23 params, the description carries a heavy burden and covers the central parameters well: enumerates nearly all action enum values, explains tool_id/mcp_id flow, arguments for invoke, and prompt_slug/prompt_vars for the prompt library. However, several params (limit, immediate, tier_slug, conversation, cancel_reason, cancel_comment, prompt_targets) remain unexplained.

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 defines the tool as the official mcp.ai marketplace that catalogs every MCP/tool AND runs them, with a specific search→describe→invoke core flow. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming what it handles (report_bug, request_mcp, list_tools, prompt library) and what it covers (capability requests, CPF lookups).

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 when-to-use guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' versus 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'. It also clarifies usage context via capability request examples and the retry flow after connect/checkout links, and defines when each sub-tool (list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug) applies.

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 annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds valuable context beyond those flags: data comes from official Brazilian sources, is non-confidential, requires prepaid credit, and is subject to LGPD data-controller responsibility. No contradiction exists 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds practical and legal usage details in a few short sentences. Each sentence contributes distinct information, though the legal sentence is somewhat dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description should ideally describe the return format or the exact result of the consultation, but it only implies a CND result via the tool's purpose. It covers payment, credentials, source, and LGPD, yet the unexplained preferencia_emissao parameter and missing output details leave moderate gaps.

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 does not mention either parameter. While 'cnpj' is inferable from the CND context, the optional 'preferencia_emissao' field is completely unexplained, leaving the agent unable to know valid values or 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 begins with a specific verb+resource: it is a consultation (consulta) of the Certidão Negativa de Débitos for Prefeitura PR Francisco Beltrão from an official source. This clearly distinguishes it from the generic platform siblings (authenticate, marketplace, report_bug, etc.) and the scope is unmistakable.

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 states the relevant use context: official-source CND query requiring no platform credentials and paid per query with prepaid credit. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or give when-not-to-use exclusions, but the municipal scope and payment model provide clear practical 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 cover read-only, idempotent, and destructive hints, so the bar is lower. The description adds a hint about including a conversation array, but does not elaborate on side effects or permissions. No contradictions with 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 two concise sentences with no redundancy, directly stating the purpose and a key input requirement. It is well-structured 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?

The description is adequate for a simple reporting tool, but lacks detail on expected input format (e.g., JSON structure for conversation) or potential side effects. Given the absence of an output schema, return values are not required, but more context would improve completeness.

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 minimal: only 'conversation' is hinted via 'conversation array', while 'message' and 'context' are unspecified. The description does not compensate for the low coverage, leaving parameter semantics unclear.

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 uses a specific verb ('report') and resource types, distinguishing it from siblings 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 description provides clear usage context—when to report a bug, missing feature, or feedback. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scenarios are well-defined enough for an agent to decide.

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, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the literal function (e.g., no mention of caching, network calls, or side effects). Given the annotations, the description meets the baseline but 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 a single sentence of 8 words, front-loaded with the verb and object. It is efficient with zero wasted words, perfectly proportional to the tool's trivial nature.

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 extremely simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description fully captures the purpose and expected output (platform and adapter versions). Nothing is missing for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 nothing to explain. According to the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline 4. The schema coverage is trivially 100% since the schema is empty, and the description does not need to compensate for any undocumented 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 explicitly states the tool shows current MCP platform and adapter versions, using a clear verb ('Show') and specific resource ('versions'). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or '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 clearly states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus other tools. For a trivial version-checking tool with no obvious alternative among siblings, this is acceptable but not explicit. No when/when-not guidance or alternative references are given.

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 annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to establish safety. The description adds value by specifying the content of the return state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts). It does not add much beyond that, but given the strong annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 is dense with information: it lists all the types of information returned. No filler words, each phrase adds meaning.

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 the tool has no parameters, has comprehensive annotations (read-only, idempotent), and no output schema, the description is complete: it tells the agent exactly what the tool returns. It does not need to explain return formats because there is no output schema to contradict, and the description covers the essential aspects.

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 schema is complete with no description needed. The baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter info because there are none, but this is properly handled.

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 exactly what it includes: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is a specific verb-resource description ('Returns the current toolkit state') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'marketplace' or 'show_version'.

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 it: whenever you need an overview of the toolkit's state, including connections and catalog counts. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear, especially with sibling names like 'marketplace' and 'show_version' that serve different purposes.

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