Prefeitura RJ Rio de Janeiro: Emissão de IPTU

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context about token persistence (permanent non-expiring vs session-only) and explains the no-args behavior to get a link. This goes beyond annotations and clarifies side effects (e.g., token storage). No 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?

Three sentences, but information-dense. The first sentence sets context, the second explains permanent setup, the third explains session-only and no-args behavior. Slightly verbose but each part earns its place; no 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?

For an authentication tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow, both token acquisition methods, and configuration options. It doesn't describe response format or error handling, but these are less critical for auth and not obvious from schema. Given the complexity, it is reasonably 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?

Schema has one optional string parameter with no descriptions (coverage 0%). The description compensates by explaining that 'token' should be a JWT, that it's optional, and that calling with no args returns a link. It adds semantic meaning beyond the bare 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 that this tool authenticates MCP.AI for IDE agents like Cursor, explaining what it does: log in via browser, copy token, and configure connection. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' by detailing the specific authentication workflow and two modes (permanent config vs session token).

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?

Explicitly gives when-to-use guidance: for authentication setup. It describes two alternatives (add as Authorization header for permanent connection, or pass token for session-only) and recommends the best practice. This is better than simply stating 'use for auth' and helps the agent 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 state readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's non-mutating nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the different response states (connected vs missing credentials) and what fields are returned. This goes beyond the annotations, providing insight into the tool's conditional behavior. No annotation contradiction is present.

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 that are front-loaded with the main purpose. It wastes no words and conveys all necessary information efficiently. The structure clearly separates the general function from the specific outcomes.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values for the two main scenarios, but it does not cover intermediate states (e.g., some providers connected, others not). Given the simplicity of the tool and the content provided, it is mostly complete but could be slightly more thorough to address all potential states.

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 0 parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameter usage since there are none, and the schema coverage is complete. No additional parameter semantics are 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: returns connection status and URLs. It specifies two distinct outcomes based on provider connection state, which distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' that handle authentication. The verb 'returns' and resource 'connection status' are 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?

The description implies when to use this tool (to check connection status) but does not explicitly compare it to alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is clear from the description, but no exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided. Since sibling tools like 'authenticate' and 'marketplace' are clearly different, the usage context is adequate but not maximally 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 adds substantial behavioral context beyond the sparse annotations: it discloses the one-off install behavior behind invoke, the connect/checkout fallback flows, workspace owner/admin permission requirements for writes, and the installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace flags on search/describe. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know. No contradiction 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 a single dense paragraph, but every sentence carries distinct information: core flow, invoke vs install, auth/billing edge cases, permission requirements, and the prompt library. It is front-loaded with the key identity ('official mcp.ai marketplace') and uses 'KEY:' to emphasize the most critical behavior. It could be improved with bullet points or separate paragraphs, but for 14 actions and 23 params, it is remarkably compact without 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 the high complexity (14 actions, 23 optional params, no output schema, minimal annotations), the description covers an impressive amount: the full search→describe→invoke flow, install vs invoke semantics, permission requirements, prompt library sub-usage, and even account-state outcomes (connect/checkout links). However, it omits the 'resume' action entirely and does not specify what search/describe/list_tools return in terms of shape, so an agent is left guessing on those details. Still, it is largely complete for safe 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the full parameter meaning load. It does explain major params implicitly: action (via the action list), tool_id ('so you pick the right tool_id → invoke RUNS that tool'), prompt_vars (get_prompt fills {{variables}}), prompt_slug/publish_prompt (shareable link), and cancel_reason/cancel_comment (for cancel). However, several params are completely unexplained: resume, immediate, tier_slug, conversation, prompt_tool, message, and report_context. The description gives a good conceptual map but does not fully compensate for the total absence of 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 opens with a specific statement: 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It clearly defines the tool's role as both catalog and executor, and explains its coverage of capability requests ('find an MCP that does X', 'consulta um CPF'). This distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate/connect or specific tools like pref_rj_rio_janeiro_iptu_consultar by positioning it as the meta-tool that discovers and runs such MCPs.

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 when-to-use guidance and exclusions: 'invoke works even when the MCP is NOT installed — it runs the tool pontualmente (one-off)... Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use.' It also explains the retry flow for auth/payment failures ('invoke returns a connect link... if it is paid and the wallet is empty, invoke returns a checkout/top-up link'), and differentiates sub-actions like 'report_bug sends feedback; request_mcp asks us to build a NEW MCP when nothing fits.'

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 indicates a read-only consultation ('consulta') and clarifies data is not confidential. This aligns with the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). It adds context about data source and legal responsibility, which is useful. Since annotations already declare safety, the description's additional details are adequate.

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 somewhat repetitive (e.g., 'consulta' and 'fonte oficial' appear twice) and includes legal boilerplate. It is not excessively long, but could be streamlined while retaining essential 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?

The description provides a general overview but omits critical details about the required parameters. It also does not mention expected output or any potential limitations. Given the tool's simplicity, more context about inputs and expected results would be necessary for effective usage.

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 lists three string parameters (cota, inscricao, guia_exercicio) with no descriptions, and the description does not explain their meaning or usage. Without any guidance, an agent cannot correctly fill these fields. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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: 'Emissão de IPTU, consulta em fonte oficial' (IPTU issuance/consultation from official source). This is a specific verb (consulta) and resource (IPTU) for Rio de Janeiro, distinguishing it from generic sibling tools like authenticate 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?

It explains usage context: hosted on the platform, no platform credentials needed, pay-per-query with prepaid credits, and that data is from official Brazilian sources. It also notes LGPD responsibility, giving practical and legal guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but the specificity suffices.

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 signal idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-read, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds the useful context that recent messages should be included for reproduction, but it does not disclose side effects, confirmation behavior, or what happens after submission.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Every clause contributes either to the tool's purpose or to the reproduction guidance.

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 this is a low-complexity tool with three simple string parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the most important payload (conversation array). The only gaps are the undocumented 'context' parameter and absence of post-submission expectations, which is a minor shortcoming for a bug-report 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by explicitly mentioning the conversation array and implying the message is the main report body, but the 'context' parameter is left unexplained in both the schema and description. The description adds some meaning over the bare schema, but not enough to fully cover all three 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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('a bug, missing feature, or send feedback'), which clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like authenticate, show_version, and toolkit_info. It also adds a concrete instruction about including the conversation array for reproduction, making the purpose more than just a restatement of the name.

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 the tool should be used when the agent needs to report a bug or send feedback, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. The 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction' instruction gives operational guidance, but not clear selection criteria or exclusions.

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, indicating a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the annotations, but because the tool has zero parameters and is a simple version query, the annotations carry the full burden. The description does not contradict the annotations, so a score of 4 is appropriate since it adds no additional context but the annotations are adequate.

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, extremely concise, and front-loaded with the purpose. It has zero wasted words and perfectly earns its place. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough to inform an agent about its function. The annotations provide the safety profile. No further details (like return format) are strictly necessary because the description clearly indicates a version display, and the output schema is not needed. It is complete for this simple 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 zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete with 100% coverage. The description does not need to explain any parameters because there are none. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter information, but it's not required. Thus, a score of 4 is justified.

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 verb 'Show' and specifies the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), which clearly states the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like 'toolkit_info' by focusing on MCP platform and adapter versions rather than general toolkit information. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 context: this is a simple informational tool to check current versions. It does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like 'toolkit_info'. Given the simplicity and the fact that there are sibling tools that might serve similar purposes, some guidance would be helpful, but it is not misleading.

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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the returned state information, which complements the annotations without contradicting them. No side effects are described, but the readOnly hint covers that.

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 states the purpose and output. 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns. It covers the key elements of the toolkit state, making it complete for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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 input schema is empty. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4; the description does not need to explain anything about inputs.

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, listing specific details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version, which likely reports version info.

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 inspecting toolkit state but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like show_version or marketplace. No when-not guidance is provided.

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