Prefeitura SC Blumenau: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be non-destructive and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the permanent vs. session-only authentication modes and the effect of providing a token vs. getting a link. It doesn't detail failure modes, but it goes beyond annotation coverage by describing the two distinct call behaviors.

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 but packs multiple pieces of information: the target audience, the permanent configuration method, the session token method, and the no-argument link retrieval. It's front-loaded with 'MCP.AI for IDE agents' to set context, and while dense, every phrase is critical. It's concise without being terse.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to know exactly how to invoke it: with a token for session login, or without to obtain a link. It also covers the recommended permanent setup. There are no gaps in the essential usage information needed for correct 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?

The schema provides only a 'token' string with 0% description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining that the token is an optional JWT, that it is used for session-only login, and that omitting it returns a login link. This gives the agent complete understanding of the parameter's purpose and optionality.

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: to authenticate an MCP.AI connection for IDE agents. It specifies the action (log in) and the resource (access token), and distinguishes between the two invocation modes (with token vs no args to get link). While not explicitly comparing to siblings like 'connect', the domain is clearly authentication, so it's 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 gives explicit guidance on when and how to use the tool: it recommends the permanent config header method, explains the session-only token paste option, and specifies that calling with no arguments yields a login link. It also mentions the context of IDE agents, providing clear usage scenarios without needing to consult siblings.

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 annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description explains exactly what the response will contain under different circumstances (e.g., empty pending[] when connected, connect_url when credentials are missing). It adds valuable context about the tool's behavior without contradicting any 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 extremely concise at two sentences, opens with the primary action, and front-loads the resource. Every phrase adds information, with zero 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 status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key scenarios (all connected, missing credentials) and return values. It could be more complete by mentioning error or partial connection states, but for the tool's simplicity it is quite 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Since there are no params to describe, the baseline is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output semantics rather than parameter details, which is correct for a parameterless 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('connection status and URLs') and provides conditional behavior (all providers connected vs missing credentials), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like `authenticate` or `marketplace`. It leaves no ambiguity 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 implies when to use the tool: to check connection status, with conditions on what responses to expect (authenticated:true, empty pending[], connect_url). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks that extra 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 only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes far beyond them by disclosing that invoke runs one-off without installing, writes require workspace owner/admin, installs are permanent and bloat the tool list, and paid/credentialed MCPs return checkout/connect links that require user action before retry. 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 long but densely informative, front-loading the core marketplace identity and then walking through the flow in order. It lacks markdown structure or headings, making it feel like a wall of text, but nearly every sentence adds a distinct behavioral fact needed for this 14-action 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?

Given 23 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main actions, side effects, auth requirements, billing behavior, and the prompt-library sub-feature impressively well. It omits semantics for a few actions/parameters (e.g., resume, immediate, tier_slug) and does not describe return shapes, but it is sufficient for an agent to get started and ask targeted follow-ups.

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 carries the burden. It explains most action enum values (search, describe, invoke, install, list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, prompt actions) and clarifies tool_id selection and prompt variable behavior. However, several parameters like limit, query, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, and report_context remain under-explained despite being part of the 23-parameter 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 opens with a clear verb-resource pair: 'the official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It goes on to explain the core search → describe → invoke flow and distinguishes itself from narrower sibling tools by framing itself as the catalog/execution hub.

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 strong usage direction: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT,' and it covers when invoke needs a connect/checkout link. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like connect or toolkit_info, but internally it clearly delineates when each action should be used.

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 annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses important behaviors: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, is paid per query via prepaid credit, queries official Brazilian sources, and states the client's LGPD data controller responsibilities. This adds substantial operational and legal context not available from 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 relatively compact and front-loads the core purpose, but it contains redundancy (repeating the official source concept) and the LGPD clause adds length. Still, each sentence contributes useful context about payment, credentials, and legal responsibility.

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 should clarify what the response contains (e.g., the certificate content or status). It also omits guidance on whether cpf, cnpj, or both are needed for the query. While annotations cover safety, the practical usage and return format remain underspecified for a moderate-complexity 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 input schema has two parameters (cpf, cnpj) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain their purpose, which one is required, or whether both can be provided. The tool name implies a CND lookup, but the agent is left guessing how to populate the parameters, especially since neither is marked as 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 explicitly states the tool performs a query for a 'Certidão Negativa de Débitos' (Negative Debt Certificate) from Blumenau city hall, using an official source. This specific verb+resource clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate 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 clear context for when to use this tool (consulting a CND from Blumenau) and adds operational details (no platform credentials required, prepaid credit payment). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though no direct alternatives exist among siblings.

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 idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond instructing to include the conversation array, which is useful for reproduction but doesn't disclose side effects or requirements. It does not 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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and provides a key instruction. There are no filler words or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 reporting tool, the description covers the essential action and the key input for reproduction. It lacks details about the outcome or response, but given no output schema and the tool's straightforward nature, 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters. It only elaborates on 'conversation' by saying to include the array for reproduction, but leaves 'context' and 'message' unexplained. Since 'message' is required but self-explanatory, the lack of detail for 'context' is a notable gap.

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 with a specific verb 'Report' and lists three distinct things: bug, missing feature, or feedback. This distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which are all different actions.

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 instructs the user to 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction', which is a clear usage directive. It implies this tool is for reporting issues rather than general queries, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description is consistent with these and adds clarity that both platform and adapter versions are covered. It does not contradict the annotations, though it could add detail about output format or prerequisites.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. Every word contributes meaning, making it an exemplary concise description.

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 informational tool, the description is largely complete. It could mention what the output looks like or whether authentication is required, but given the simple nature and the presence of consistent annotations, the current description is 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, so the input schema contributes no parameter semantics. The description appropriately requires no parameter documentation, matching the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 and resource: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or report_bug, 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 intended use is implied: use this tool when you need current MCP/adapter version information. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives to prefer, such as toolkit_info or marketplace, so usage guidance remains 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what information is returned, which helps set expectations for a status/inspection call.

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 immediately states the tool's purpose and lists its return contents. Every phrase contributes meaning, with no redundancy or 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?

This is a simple zero-parameter, read-only informational tool with rich annotations. There is no output schema, so the description appropriately carries the return-value explanation by naming the four categories of toolkit state it provides. No important context is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on return contents rather than input details.

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 ('returns') with a well-defined resource ('the current toolkit state') and enumerates the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools like show_version 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—call this tool when you need an overview of the toolkit's current installations and status—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of exclusions or sibling comparisons.

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