Prefeitura TO Palmas: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: it explains the token format (JWT), the permanent vs. session nature, and the behavior of returning a link when no token is provided. This adds value over the annotations, which only indicate idempotence.

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 dense but well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then presenting the recommended approach (config header) and alternative (session token). Every sentence serves a purpose, and it avoids 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?

For a simple authentication tool with 1 optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary usage patterns: permanent config, session token, and link generation. It is complete and self-contained for an agent to act on.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'token' parameter's role, its expected format (JWT), and the valid scenarios (allowing empty call to get a link). This is essential for correct use.

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 it is for authentication, specifying the browser login flow and token retrieval. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'marketplace' by focusing on user login and token handling.

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 invocation mode: adding the token to config for permanent access, passing the token for session-only, or calling with no args to get the login link. This is a clear and actionable comparison of 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 indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by explaining the conditional return of URLs and the meaning of 'authenticated:true'. It does not contradict the annotations and provides beyond-annotation context about the state-based response.

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 and to the point, using clear conditional sentences. It is not overly verbose but could be slightly improved by front-loading the tool's purpose more explicitly, though it is already quite efficient.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, read-only, idempotent) and the annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient info about return values. It does not discuss potential error cases or rate limits, but these are not critical for a connection status check. The completeness is adequate.

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 doesn't need to explain parameters. The schema covers 100% of parameters (none), and the description focuses on output semantics, which is appropriate. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and 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 reports connection status and URLs, distinguishing it from authentication and other tools. It specifies the output behavior under different states (all connected vs. missing credentials), but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_version' or 'toolkit_info' beyond the focus on connection.

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 it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'authenticate'. It mentions the output in different scenarios but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance. This is adequate but not explicitly differentiated.

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?

With only minimal boolean annotations (readOnlyHint: false, etc.), the description carries the behavioral burden and delivers: side effects of invoke (one-off, no toolkit bloat), the authentication redirect behavior, the wallet/top-up path, persist vs. ephemeral semantics, and the shareable-link behavior of publish_prompt (no login required). A small deduction for unexplained side-effecting actions like 'resume' and no detail on rate limits or idempotency of install.

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 single, sprawling run-on paragraph that code-switches into Portuguese ('consulta um CPF', 'pontualmente') mid-technical-document. The density is high (every sentence adds info), but a 500-word block with no bullet points, headers, or per-action-group sections is actively hard to parse. Notably under-structured for a tool with 14 actions across 6 functional groups.

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 zero output schema and minimal annotations, the description compensates by covering the core search→describe→invoke flow, install persistence, billing/subscribe, permissions, and the prompt library use case. However, the 'resume' action is never mentioned despite being in the enum, and error/edge-case behaviors (e.g., invoke on a paid MCP with insufficient funds mid-session) are covered but the output shape of most actions is left implicit. Adequate for routine use, incomplete for edge cases.

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% across 23 params, so the description MUST compensate. It nails the trickiest pairing (tool_id → arguments, requiring describe first) and implicitly documents action values, mcp_id, and the prompt_* params. However, many params are left unexplained: limit, query, message, immediate, tier_slug, conversation, cancel_reason, report_context. Semi-arbitrary enums like cancel_reason are self-documenting, but 'immediate' and 'tier_slug' are footguns for an agent.

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 opening line ('The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them') clearly identifies verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings implicitly and explicitly names adjacent actions (report_bug, request_mcp) to clarify boundaries, though the 'umbrella' nature means it lacks the laser-focus of a single-purpose 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?

Outstanding guidance on when to use which alternative. Explicit distinctions: 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', contrasts list_tools ('what is callable right now'), and documents retry flows after auth ('the user opens it, then you retry'). Also flags when writes require owner/admin. This is exemplary — it prevents real misuse.

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 already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: there is a cost per consultation, no platform credentials are required, the data comes from official public sources, and the client is responsible for LGPD compliance and legitimate purpose.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the tool's purpose, and the remaining sentences add essential operational and legal details. Every sentence contributes useful context without repetition or padding.

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 provides strong context for choosing the tool and understanding the legal/financial implications. However, with four undocumented parameters and no output schema, there are clear gaps around correct invocation and expected return behavior.

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 cpf, cnpj, outra, or finalidade. It leaves the agent unsure which identifier should be provided, whether one or multiple allowed, what 'outra' means, and how 'finalidade' should be used.

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 a specific action and resource: consulting the Certidão Negativa de Débitos from Prefeitura de Palmas via an official source. It is specific enough to distinguish itself from the unrelated sibling tools such as authenticate, marketplace, and 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?

It provides clear operational context: the tool is a paid, prepaid-credit consultation of official Brazilian public sources, requires no platform credentials, and is not secret data. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the intended use case is clearly stated and the siblings are unrelated.

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 indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but this is a report/send action, which is likely non-idempotent (creating a bug report). The description does not disclose side effects like whether a ticket is created, whether external services are called, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations, but limited added transparency.

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, both purposeful. The main instruction is front-loaded, and no extraneous words. Excellent conciseness.

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 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description must compensate, but it only explains one parameter. It lacks detail on expected format of 'conversation', whether output is expected, and the exact behavior of sending feedback. Adequate for a simple reporting tool but not fully 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly says to include the conversation array for reproduction, which adds meaning to the 'conversation' parameter. The 'message' and 'context' parameters are not elaborated, but the primary param is clarified well 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 is for reporting bugs, missing features, or sending feedback, with a specific instruction to include the conversation array. This is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace, though it could be more specific about the resource (e.g., the software system).

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 reports, feature requests, and feedback, but does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternative tools. Given the sibling tools cover other functions, some basic context is present, but exclusions are missing.

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 and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., output format, potential latency), but for a simple read-only version tool, this is adequate. 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?

A single concise sentence that precisely states the tool's purpose. No wasted words, perfectly 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with strong annotations, the description fully covers purpose and is complete. No output schema is needed since the result (version strings) is self-evident from the purpose.

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 there is nothing to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description clarifies it takes no arguments, which is the only relevant semantic information.

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 a clear verb ('Show') and resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or connect. It unambiguously conveys 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 usage for checking versions but does not explicitly state when to use it or contrast with alternatives. Given the tool's simplicity and self-explanatory nature, the lack of explicit guidance is acceptable, but it doesn't provide proactive direction.

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 description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds value by disclosing exactly what the returned state contains, including connection status and account counts, which goes 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 entire description is one tightly packed sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and then efficiently lists the relevant output facets, making every phrase 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only informational tool with complete annotation coverage, the description fully captures the tool's purpose and output contents. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by explicitly naming all categories of returned data.

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 is empty and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output 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') and clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like show_version, 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?

The description clearly communicates the context for use: whenever an agent needs to inspect installed integrations, connection statuses, or connected accounts. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the resource is specific enough that a capable agent can infer when this is the right tool.

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