Prefeitura SP Campinas: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

Annotations indicate non-readOnly and non-destructive, with idempotentHint=true. The description adds context beyond annotations: it explains the permanent vs session-only behavior, what the token is used for, and that calling with no args returns a link. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral detail.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then concise steps. Every sentence adds value: it states who it's for, the primary flow, and then the two usage modes. 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?

Given the simple tool (1 optional param, no output schema), the description is complete: it covers the intended audience, both authentication methods, how to invoke each, and the outcome (permanent vs session). It fully equips the agent to decide and call correctly.

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 has one optional 'token' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates: it explains that 'token' is a JWT/access token, shows how to pass it ('{ token: "<jwt>" }'), and clarifies the no-args case. This is excellent 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: authenticate MCP.AI for IDE agents by logging in and obtaining an access token. It specifies the verb (log in, copy token) and the resource (MCP.AI), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling 'connect', but the focus on authentication is clear enough.

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 usage guidance: two modes (permanent header configuration vs session-only token paste) and invocation patterns ('call with no args to get the link'). It explains when to use each mode but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives like 'connect'. Still, the context is clear and actionable.

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's a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the exact return values under different conditions (authenticated vs missing credentials), and that it returns both toolkit and per-install URLs. This is a meaningful addition.

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?

Two concise sentences that immediately state the purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs') and then detail behavior in two key states. No fluff, front-loaded.

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 and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (status, authenticated flag, pending[] array, and URLs). It covers both primary states but could be more explicit about the exact response structure (e.g., field names like 'authenticated' and 'pending'). Still, for a simple status tool, it's 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?

The tool has zero parameters)Skip the description needs to explain. Per rubric, 0 params = baseline 4. The description doesn't need to add anything about parameters, and it doesn't.

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 specific conditional behavior for connected vs missing credentials. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' (which initiates connections) and 'show_version' (which 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 checking connection status but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that 'authenticate' should be used to initiate connections when credentials are missing, leaving the agent to infer the workflow. Could benefit from explicit 'use this to check if all providers are connected' and 'use authenticate to initiate connections'.

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 (destructiveHint false, readOnlyHint false), so the description carries the full burden. It discloses side effects: invoke runs one-off without adding to toolkit, writes require workspace owner/admin, invoke may return connect/checkout links. It also explains that search/describe flag installation state. This goes far beyond minimal disclosure and is transparent about returns and edge cases.

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 (multiple paragraphs) but densely informative. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and flow, then systematically covers behaviors, permissions, and the prompt library. Every sentence contributes value; no fluff. While not concise, its length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

No output schema, so the description must explain return behavior. It does: describe returns a full profile, invoke returns connect/checkout links, publish_prompt returns a share link. It also covers permission prerequisites and the open-world nature. The only gap is detailed return formats for each action, but given the breadth, it is adequately complete for agent decision-making.

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 23 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the core parameters (action, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments) through the flow, and touches on prompt-related parameters (prompt_slug, prompt_vars). However, it does not enumerate every parameter (e.g., limit, immediate, tier_slug), relying on defaults and action-specific context. For a 23-parameter tool, it provides enough semantic grounding but leaves some parameters implicit.

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: 'the official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It distinguishes from siblings by covering MCP discovery, execution, and prompt library operations, while siblings like authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info serve different roles. The scope is explicit and verbs are specific (search, describe, invoke, install).

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 usage guidance, including when to prefer invoke over install ('use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use'), and outlines the core flow (search → describe → invoke). It also explains conditional behaviors (credential/checkout links, retry) and permission requirements, and covers related capabilities like prompt library usage. This thoroughly differentiates between actions and gives clear decision criteria.

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 context about data not being confidential, being the same as citizen-available, and the client's LGPD responsibilities, which extends beyond the structured hints.

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 reasonably concise, starts with the main purpose, and includes relevant operational and legal details. It could be tightened, but every sentence adds useful context.

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 covers purpose, data source, payment, and privacy, but omits parameter details and does not explain the return value or any conditions (e.g., required input). Given that there is no output schema, this is a notable gap for a complete picture.

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 explain the cpf or cnpj parameters at all. The agent is left without guidance on which identifier is needed or how they relate to the certificate query, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 function: consulting a Negative Debt Certificate (Certidão Negativa de Débitos) from Prefeitura SP Campinas, with the verb 'consultar' in the name. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which serve platform-level 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 provides useful context: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, and payment is made via prepaid credit per query. It does not mention explicit alternatives, but sibling tools are unrelated, so the context is sufficient.

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 that the tool will send feedback and that the conversation is included for reproduction purposes. This adds context beyond the annotations, which only indicate idempotency and non-destructive behavior. No contradiction with annotations is detected.

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 at two sentences and front-loads the primary purpose and the most important usage instruction. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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 feedback tool with no output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it fails to document the required `message` parameter or the optional `context` parameter, and its description of `conversation` conflicts with the schema's string type. These gaps make the tool incomplete for an agent to use it confidently.

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 needs to explain the required parameters. It mentions the `conversation` parameter but describes it as an 'array', while the schema types it as a string with default '[]'. The required `message` parameter and optional `context` parameter 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?

Clearly identifies the action ('report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback') and the resource involved, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools. The verb 'report' and 'send' specify what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 advises including the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction, which is practical usage guidance. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given, but none of the sibling tools serve the same purpose, so the guidance is still 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds useful context by naming exactly what is shown (MCP platform and adapter versions), but it does not disclose additional behavioral aspects like output shape, network usage, or error behavior.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler or redundant content. It leaves nothing to parse and is immediately useful.

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, a straightforward read-only role, and rich annotations already covering safety, this description is complete enough. It tells the agent exactly what information is shown, which is sufficient for selecting and invoking the 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 with 100% schema coverage, so there is limited parameter semantics for the description to add. The baseline for zero-parameter tools applies, and the description's 'MCP platform and adapter versions' helps clarify what the returned value represents.

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 ('Show') and names the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), so the tool's function is immediately clear. This is distinct from the sibling tools like authenticate/connect and does not feel tautological.

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 that an agent should use this tool when it needs to know the current MCP platform and adapter versions. However, it does not explicitly address when to avoid it, mention alternatives, or compare it to related tools such as toolkit_info.

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, so the agent knows it's a safe, non-mutating call. The description adds context about the content (connection statuses, accounts, catalog tool counts) beyond what annotations provide. It doesn't describe any edge cases (e.g., what happens if no MCPs are installed) or error conditions, but given the rich annotations, this is acceptable. 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action ('Returns the current toolkit state'), then a concise enumeration of included details. No wasted words, no repetition of schema or annotations. Ideal length 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, annotations covering safety), the description is complete enough. It tells the agent exactly what to expect in the response and implicitly confirms this is a read-only snapshot. It doesn't mention any potential latency or need for prior authentication, but that's a minor gap for a status tool. Sibling tools like 'connect' and 'authenticate' suggest this might be called before/after those, but the description doesn't address ordering prerequisites, though that might be over-engineering for this 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 0 parameters, and the schema is empty. With no parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description's job here is to clarify the returned content, which it does ('installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, how many catalog tools'). Since there are no parameters to explain, this high score is appropriate.

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 specific context: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools). The verb 'Returns' plus resource 'toolkit state' is clear. However, the sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) suggest this is a diagnostics/status tool but the description doesn't explicitly contrast it with 'show_version' style info tools, so it lacks a direct sibling differentiation statement.

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 as an inspection/diagnostic tool: you'd call it to see the current state of MCPs and accounts. But it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'show_version' or 'report_bug'. There's no guidance on when NOT to use it or when another tool would be preferred. For a read-only diagnostic tool, this is adequate but lacks explicit decision criteria.

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