Prefeitura RN Natal: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

Beyond annotations, the description explains browser login, copying the access token, the permanent header configuration, session-only token usage, and that calling with no args returns a link. It aligns with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false 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 relatively compact while covering two authentication paths and a best practice. It is somewhat dense and could be restructured for readability, but every clause contributes useful 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?

For a single-optional-parameter auth tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and both permanent and session-only flows. It doesn't describe the exact response shape, but it does mention returning a link when called with no args, providing adequate context.

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 token parameter is a JWT and how to pass it, and that omitting it yields a login link. This adds meaningful semantics 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 explicitly identifies the tool as authenticating MCP.AI for IDE agents, detailing the browser login flow and token usage. It focuses on access token authentication, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect 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?

It provides explicit usage modes: adding the token to config for a permanent connection, or pasting it for a session-only login. It also specifies call patterns with and without the token, giving clear context for each scenario.

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. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by detailing the exact response states and that missing credentials yield toolkit and per-install URLs, which goes beyond 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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs') before adding conditional detail. Every word earns its place with 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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains the primary return values and two key states (all connected vs. missing credentials). It does not describe partial-connection states or error scenarios, but for a simple status tool the coverage is mostly sufficient.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than 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 connection status and URLs, with a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('connection status'). It implies a distinction from the sibling 'authenticate' tool, but does not explicitly differentiate from it or other siblings.

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 context about when the tool returns different values (all connected vs. missing credentials), but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives like 'authenticate'. Usage is implied rather than 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?

Despite the sparse annotations (only readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses key behavioral traits: invoke runs one-off without installing, may return connect/checkout links, writes require owner/admin, and search/describe flag installed status. It adds value beyond annotations by explaining the one-off execution semantics and credential/billing contingencies. No conflict 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 with many sentences and no bullets or numbering. It front-loads the name but then goes into a long string of actions and caveats, making it hard to scan. While the content is substantive, the structure is not optimized for quick comprehension; it would benefit from breaking into sections (Marketplace actions, Prompt Library, Authorization, etc.).

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 parameters, 14 actions, no output schema), the description does not fully explain all actions and their returns. It covers core actions but omits details for subscribe/cancel (tier_slug, cancel_reason), report_bug (report_context), request_mcp (request_name, request_details), and prompt library specifics (prompt_vars, prompt_targets). Without an output schema, the return values are not described for most actions, leaving the agent to guess.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains the action enum (search, describe, invoke, etc.) and some flow-related parameters implicitly (e.g., 'action=search' implies query is the intent). However, it does not explicitly map many parameters like mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, limit, message, or the prompt_* fields to their functions. It provides directional knowledge but lacks systematic coverage, leaving a gap for a tool with 23 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 what the tool does: it is the mcp.ai marketplace catalog and execution engine. It covers a wide range of actions (search, describe, invoke, install, prompt library, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate or connect. The verb 'marketplace' is defined as the in-platform catalog and method to run MCPs, making the purpose 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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance, including the core flow: search -> describe -> invoke, and contrasts invoke vs install ('prefer invoke for a single/occasional use') with clear rationale. It also gives exclusion criteria (e.g., 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT') and mentions authorization requirements for writes (owner/admin). This is exactly the kind of alternative-selection guidance expected.

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 costs (prepaid credits), the non-confidential nature of the data, and legal responsibilities. It does not cover failure scenarios or rate limits, but the main side effects are addressed.

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 paragraph with repetitive phrasing ('consulta em fonte oficial' and 'consulta informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais') and includes legal boilerplate. It could be more concise and structured for clarity.

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 mentions the platform hosting and lack of platform credentials, and it references official sources and LGPD. However, it does not explicitly connect to sibling tools like authentication or payment, leaving the integration context 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 lists three parameters (cpf, cnpj, tipo_certidao) with no descriptions. The description does not explain their roles, relationships, or which are required beyond the schema's required field. This leaves ambiguity about parameter usage.

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 as a query for a Negative Debt Certificate (Certidão Negativa de Débitos) from the municipality of Natal, describing it as an official consultation. However, it could be more specific about the exact nature of the certificate types covered.

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 mentions payment per query and the user's data controller responsibilities under LGPD, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or whether authentication is required. It lacks explicit instructions on operational 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?

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the practical hint to include recent messages, but does not disclose side effects, privacy implications, or submission behavior beyond 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and the most important usage hint without wasted words. It is concise and immediately scannable.

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?

This is a simple tool with only three parameters and no output schema, so the description is mostly sufficient for basic use. However, it leaves 'context' undefined and inaccurately describes 'conversation' as an array, creating minor gaps in 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives some meaning to 'conversation' by explaining it should contain recent messages, but incorrectly calls it an array while the schema declares it as a string. The required 'message' and optional 'context' parameters are not explained at all.

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 the tool reports bugs, missing features, or feedback, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and show_version, which serve entirely 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 implies usage for bug reporting and feedback and gives reproduction guidance by asking for the conversation array. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention any alternatives; guidance is present but mostly implicit.

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, destructiveHint=false, adequately covering safety. The description adds no extra behavioral details beyond the obvious 'show' operation, but doesn't contradict 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?

Single sentence, perfectly concise, no wasted words. The description is exactly as long as needed.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool, the description is adequate. No output schema exists, but the return value is implied (version information). The annotations cover safety, so the description doesn't need additional caveats.

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?

Tool has zero parameterschen Parameter semantics are not applicable. Baseline of 4 for 0 params, since there's no schema burden to compensate.

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 the tool shows current MCP platform and adapter versions. Distinct from siblings which are about authentication, connection, marketplace, and reporting.

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 (to check versions) and there are no alternative tools for version info. Clear context but no explicit when-not or alternatives, which is acceptable for such a simple tool.

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 safety and idempotency. The description adds value by detailing what information is returned (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, counts), which is context beyond the annotations. It does not introduce any contradictory behavior, so it scores high.

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 sentence that lists exactly what the tool returns. There is no fluff, redundancy, or unnecessary elaboration. It is perfectly structured for quick comprehension.

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 is no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. For a read-only info tool with no parameters, this is complete and actionable. No additional context (pagination, formats) is needed for basic 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides full coverage (100%). Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter-related details, but none are needed. It appropriately sticks to describing the output rather than trying to document non-existent 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 specifies the action (returns) and the resource (current toolkit state), and enumerates the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. It is distinct from siblings like 'connect' or 'authenticate' which are action-oriented, whereas this is a state-inspection tool.

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 use for checking the toolkit status (e.g., before connecting or authenticating), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'show_version' or 'marketplace'. It lacks clear exclusions or alternative guidance, earning a mid score.

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