Prefeitura SP Sorocaba: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

The description discloses that the config method gives 'permanent, non-expiring connection' and session method is 'session-only', adding context beyond annotations. It also mentions the browser login step. It does not contradict the idempotentHint and provides useful behavioral details.

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 rambling paragraph mixing instructions for the IDE agent and the user. It could be more structured and concise, but it is not excessively long. The opening 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.):' is unclear and could be trimmed.

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?

It covers both authentication modes and the no-arg case. It lacks details on return values or error handling for a successful session login, but given the simple interface (one optional parameter) and no output schema, it is reasonably complete for the agent to use.

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 no descriptions, but the description explains the token parameter: 'call with { token: "<jwt>" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link.' This fully covers the optional parameter's semantics, including format and when to omit it.

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 states 'log in in the browser, copy the access token' and 'session-only login', clearly indicating this tool authenticates the user. It distinguishes from siblings like 'connect' by focusing on token-based authentication, though the phrasing mixes instructions for the agent and user.

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 explicitly says 'Best: add it to this server's config as a header... Or paste it here for a session-only login' and instructs when to use token vs no args, providing clear usage guidance and recommending the permanent config approach.

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 established. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the response shape ('authenticated:true and empty pending[]', 'connect_url' for the toolkit, per-install URLs). This enriches the agent's understanding of what the tool tells them, which is credit-worthy.

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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides the key conditional outcomes. Every word earns its place; this is a model of concision for a status 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 that the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description fully covers the tool's contract. The only slight gap is that the description doesn't explain the full set of fields (like 'connect_url' vs per-install URLs) but that's minor for a read-only status check. It is complete enough for any agent to invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema requires nothing of the agent. With no parameters to document, the description has no obligation to add parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is no gap for the description to fill.

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 clear resource ('connection status and URLs') and provides useful detail about the authenticated and unauthenticated states. It is clear what the tool does, and the fact that it's a status/health check distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' or 'marketplace', though sibling differentiation is not explicit.

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 this is a status-check tool that should be used to inspect connection state, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info'. It is not misleading, but there is no explicit when/when-not 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?

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: invoke can run MCPs even if not installed, returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment issues, and highlights permission constraints. It aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) 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 lengthy but logically organized around the core flow, then actions, then prompt library. Every sentence adds functional detail, though it could be tightened with bullets or subheadings for 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?

Given the tool's complexity (23 params, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the full lifecycle of discovery, evaluation, execution, installation, billing, and support, including edge cases like authentication and payment failures.

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. It effectively explains the central action parameter and its values through the core flow, covering mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, and prompt-related params. Some parameters (e.g., limit, query, immediate) are only implicitly referenced, leaving gaps.

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 it is the official mcp.ai marketplace and clearly defines its role as the catalog and execution layer for MCPs. It enumerates distinct actions (search, describe, invoke, install, etc.) and differentiates them from sibling tools by positioning itself as the central 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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use each action, such as preferring invoke for one-off usage over install for permanent additions. It also explains alternatives like list_tools for currently callable tools and notes when permissions are required (writes need owner/admin).

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 significant behavioral context beyond the annotations for readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. It discloses that the data is public and non-confidential, that each consultation consumes prepaid credits, and that the client is responsible for LGPD compliance. This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's operational and legal aspects.

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 that front-loads the main purpose, then adds practical and legal context. While it includes some verbose legal language, it remains relatively compact and does not waste words. The structure is acceptable and 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?

With no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description leaves critical usage details undefined. It explains the payment model and data nature but does not specify input combinations, expected return values, or any prerequisites beyond payment. For a tool with 4 optional parameters, this is a significant gap that limits 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 has zero description coverage, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (cpf, cnpj, cpf_requerente, cnpj_requerente). It fails to explain what each input means or that at least one of cpf or cnpj is typically required. The description provides no semantic value for the 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 identifies the tool as a consulta (query) for a Certidão Negativa de Débitos (Negative Debt Certificate) from Sorocaba city hall. It specifies the resource and the action, making it distinct in purpose even though sibling tools are unrelated.

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 usage context: it's a paid query that requires prepaid credits, works without platform credentials, and is meant for consulting official Brazilian sources. It implies the tool is used when a CND from Sorocaba is needed, though it doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. The context is sufficient for basic usage understanding.

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. The description adds the tip about conversation array for reproduction but does not disclose side effects (e.g., data submission to a server) or the outcome of the report. Adds some value beyond annotations but lacks depth.

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 sentences, no filler, and the key instruction is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 tool is simple with only 3 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the purpose and one parameter's usage but omits clarification for the required 'message' parameter, the optional 'context', and does not mention what the tool returns or any post-report behavior. Adequate but 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It provides guidance for the 'conversation' parameter ('Include the conversation array with recent messages'), but does not explain 'message' (required) or 'context'. Partial coverage, so it adds some value but not enough.

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 reports a bug, missing feature, or feedback. It uses a direct verb and resource, and the scope is distinct from sibling tools (authenticate, marketplace, etc.), which are unrelated.

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 instruction to include the conversation array for reproduction, which is practical usage guidance. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it, but given there are no similar sibling tools, the need for exclusions is low.

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 annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which already inform the agent that this is a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, but the description's statement 'Show' aligns with the annotations. No contradiction, but no extra value.

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 one concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and direct. Perfectly 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 simple informational tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what to expect: versions of platform and adapter. The annotations provide additional safety context. Nothing 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 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The description adds no parameter info, but it's unnecessary. The description is sufficient.

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: showing current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb 'Show' and identifies the resource (versions), which is clear but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings. However, sibling tools like 'toolkit_info' might have overlapping functionality, but the description is specific 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 implies usage context: it's a simple informational tool for checking versions. It doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, but given the sibling names, it's clear this is the go-to for version info. There is no exclusion guidance, but the simplicity of the tool makes it straightforward.

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 safety profile is covered. The description adds specific return content (installed MCPs, status, accounts, tool counts) which enriches the behavioral transparency 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, well-structured sentence that conveys all necessary information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then details the returned state.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is fully adequate. It clearly enumerates what the tool returns, which is sufficient for a read-only state inspection 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 description does not need to document any. Baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing to clarify about parameter semantics.

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 current toolkit state, specifying exactly what it includes: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate or connect, which are action-oriented, while this is a read-only overview.

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 the toolkit's current state, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., show_version for version info). It gives clear context but no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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