Prefeitura SP São Carlos: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond the annotations: calling with no args yields a link, passing a token establishes a session-only login, and the config approach provides a non-expiring connection. It does not mention return format or error handling, but the idempotent and non-destructive hints are consistent. This adds useful context while leaving minor gaps.

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 verbose, with an introductory phrase 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)' and a meandering structure. While the information is complete, it could be tightened for clarity and front-loading. It remains understandable but is not optimally concise.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential scenarios: how to get a link, how to pass a token, and the alternative config approach. It does not elaborate on response handling or edge cases, but is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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's 'token' property has no description, but the description explains that the token is a JWT to be pasted for session login, and that omitting it yields a link. This fully clarifies the parameter's meaning and the no-args case, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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: authentication via browser login and token handling. It explains the log-in process, token acquisition, and invocation with/without a token, distinguishing between permanent config-based auth and session-only token-based auth. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the sibling 'connect' tool, leaving some 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 provides explicit usage guidance: it recommends adding the token to the server config for a permanent connection, and using the tool itself for session-only login by pasting the token or calling with no args to get a link. This clearly indicates when to use the tool versus alternatives and how to invoke it in different scenarios.

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?

Adds behavioral detail beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) by describing the two output states and the conditions (connected vs missing credentials), effectively justifying its read-only and idempotent nature.

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 front-load the purpose and then clarify the two key states, with no wasted words 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?

Covers the two primary outcomes (all connected and missing credentials) adequately. While it omits partial connectivity scenarios and does not detail URL structure, given no output schema, it provides sufficient context for a status-check 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?

There are zero parameters, so the description appropriately avoids parameter details. Baseline 4 is given for zero-parameter tools as there is nothing to document.

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 states it returns connection status and URLs, distinguishing from sibling tools like authenticate and show_version by focusing on status rather than authentication actions or 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?

Provides context on when different states occur (all connected vs missing credentials) but does not explicitly instruct when to choose this tool over alternatives like authenticate or report_bug. Implied usage is sufficient but not 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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses that invoke runs tools even when not installed, returns links for auth or payment, and that writes require admin. It also clarifies the one-off install behind invoke and flags installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace, adding substantial behavioral context without contradicting 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 long paragraph covering many sub-features. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and flow, and every sentence adds value for a complex tool. While not broken into sections, the density is justified given the scope, though a structured layout would improve readability.

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 exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining return behavior. It specifies outputs for describe (full profile), invoke (connect/checkout links), and list_tools (callable tools). It also covers auth and billing flows. Some actions (e.g., prompt library) lack return details, but overall it provides sufficient context for a complex tool with many actions.

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 coverage and 23 parameters, the description must compensate. It explains the key actions and uses of parameters like action, mcp_id, tool_id, but does not describe many others (e.g., limit, query, prompt_*). It gives high-level flow but lacks per-parameter details, so the agent may struggle to construct precise calls for less common actions.

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 is the mcp.ai marketplace, with specific verb+resource: it catalogs and runs MCPs, and also includes a prompt library. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by outlining its core flow of search/describe/invoke and listing distinct sub-actions like install and subscribe.

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: use invoke for one-off runs, install only for permanent additions, and explains when to use search vs describe vs list_tools. It also states that writes require workspace owner/admin, and notes auth/billing edge cases, providing clear context on when to use this tool over 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?

As anotações já declaram readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true e destructiveHint=false. A descrição acrescenta contexto comportamental útil: modelo de cobrança, ausência de credenciais, natureza não sigilosa dos dados e responsabilidade do cliente como controlador. Não há contradição com as anotações.

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?

A descrição é front-loaded com o propósito e usa frases curtas e informativas sobre hospedagem, pagamento e LGPD. O trecho legal poderia ser mais compacto, mas cada frase acrescenta contexto relevante para seleção e uso.

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?

Cobre propósito, custo, autenticação e aspectos legais, enquanto as anotações cobrem o perfil de segurança. Porém, sem schema de saída e com parâmetros não documentados, faltam orientações sobre identificadores e formato da resposta, deixando lacunas para invocação correta.

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?

O schema tem 0% de cobertura descritiva e a descrição não explica cpf, cnpj ou inscricao. O parâmetro obrigatório 'inscricao' permanece sem significado explícito, e o agente não recebe orientação suficiente para preencher os parâmetros corretamente.

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?

A descrição declara claramente o que a ferramenta faz: consulta à Certidão Negativa de Débitos da Prefeitura de São Carlos em fonte oficial. O verbo 'consulta' e o recurso específico distinguem a ferramenta dos irmãos genéricos como authenticate, marketplace e 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?

Fornece contexto de uso relevante: hospedado pela plataforma, sem credenciais da plataforma, pagamento por consulta com crédito pré-pago e finalidade legítima sob LGPD. No entanto, não menciona explicitamente alternativas ou quando não usar, então não chega ao nível máximo.

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=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat these. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., data being sent to developers, potential latency, or side effects). It only mentions including a conversation array, which is an input hint rather than 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 sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then provides a specific instruction (include conversation array). There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 lacks crucial details: it does not explain the 'context' parameter, does not clarify the format of 'conversation' (string vs array), and does not state what happens after submission (e.g., confirmation, impact). With no output schema, this information is left to the agent's inference, which could lead to misuse.

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 for parameter meaning. It mentions including the conversation array, but the schema defines conversation as a string (likely JSON), not an array, causing potential confusion. The 'message' parameter is self-explanatory, but 'context' is completely unexplained. This is insufficient compensation for full parameter understanding.

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: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or show_version, which serve completely different functions.

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 reporting bugs/feedback, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Siblings are unrelated, so no conflicts arise, but there is no explicit 'when to use' statement beyond the purpose.

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 a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful context by specifying exactly what versions are reported (platform and adapter), which goes beyond the bare annotations. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to clarifying the tool's 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 zero-parameter version-inspection tool with strong safety annotations and no output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It tells the agent exactly what information will be surfaced and implies no complex side effects or prerequisites.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed because the schema's empty properties are self-explanatory and the purpose is fully described.

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') with a clear resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It is distinct from siblings like toolkit_info because it targets version information specifically.

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 tool's use case is implied: use it when you need current version information for the MCP platform or adapter. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over toolkit_info or other sibling tools, nor does it mention any 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. The description adds specific content details (what state is returned), which is useful context beyond annotations. No hidden side effects mentioned, but consistent 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 main action, and every word earns its place. It is concise and highly readable.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fully enumerates the response contents (MCPs, status, accounts, tool counts), which is complete for a zero-parameter read-only status 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, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters; baseline 4 applies. No additional parameter semantics are 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and precisely enumerates the resource ('current toolkit state') with its components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate 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?

While no explicit when/when-not is stated, the read-only status nature and sibling context (authenticate, connect) clearly imply this is for inspecting toolkit state before or after connections. Clear context but lacks explicit exclusionary guidance.

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