Processos Judiciais (Simplificada)

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: it reveals that calling with no args returns a link, and that token submission enables session login, implying temporary state. It also notes that config-based auth is permanent and non-expiring. No contradiction with the annotations (idempotent, non-read-only).

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 about 70 words in three sentences, with each sentence conveying a distinct idea (purpose, permanent method, session method). It is efficient but slightly dense; every sentence earns its place without fluff.

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 the main workflows (no args for link, token for session) but does not specify the exact return value when submitting a token (e.g., success message or error handling). Since there is no output schema, this gap leaves the agent without clear expectations for the token case.

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 a single `token` parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining it is a JWT for session login, and that omitting it (no args) yields a link. This resolves all ambiguity about the parameter.

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: authenticating IDE agents to the MCP server. It specifies the resource (MCP.AI for IDE agents) and the action (log in, obtain access token), and distinguishes between permanent config-based auth and session-based token submission. This differentiates it from sibling tools like `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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it recommends adding the token to config for a permanent connection versus using the tool for a session-only login. It also explains the two invocation modes (no args for link, with token for session). However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives among sibling tools, so a point is deducted.

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 valuable behavioral context: specific response fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url) and how they vary based on connection state, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs'), followed by a concise conditional breakdown. Every sentence adds value and there is 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?

The description covers the two likely main states (all providers connected and credentials missing) and the corresponding return values. Since there is no output schema, it provides the necessary information about what the tool returns. However, it does not explicitly describe a partially connected state, which is a minor gap but not critical for this simple 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 coverage is trivially 100%. There are no parameters for the description to explain, so the baseline score of 4 applies; the description does not need to compensate for anything.

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 the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource: connection status and URLs. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than the authentication action itself, and it explicitly describes return values in different connection states.

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 this tool: to check connection status and get URLs, especially when verifying if all providers are connected or when credentials are missing. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but sibling 'authenticate' is clearly different, and the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this tool over others.

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, the description reveals onboarding behavior: 'invoke works even when the MCP is NOT installed', auth/payment flows ('returns a connect link', 'returns a checkout/top-up link'), and permission constraints ('require workspace owner/admin'). This is significant behavioral context.

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 structured with a core flow and explicit exceptions. Every sentence adds unique information, and the use of colons and arrows makes it scannable despite its length.

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 output schema and 14 actions, the description covers the main flows, auth/payment edge cases, permissions, and the prompt library. It omits some return-format details but provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke actions 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description explains the 'action' enum and the key fields like 'tool_id' and 'arguments' via the flow, and mentions prompt-related variables indirectly. However, many of the 23 parameters (e.g., 'immediate', 'tier_slug', 'conversation') are left unexplained, so it only partially compensates.

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 'the official mcp.ai marketplace' and explains it catalogs and runs MCPs, covering 'capability requests'. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating it covers the catalog and prompt library, which other tools like 'authenticate' and 'connect' don't.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use.' It also explains the core search→describe→invoke flow and contrasts list_tools as 'what is callable right now.'

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. The description adds valuable context: payment via prepaid credit, public-access data from official sources, and LGPD compliance responsibility. 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The additional operational and legal details are relevant, though the LGPD sentence could be seen as slightly verbose for a tool description. Overall, 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?

It covers purpose, access method, payment, and legal aspects, which is sufficient for a read-only tool. However, the 'completo' parameter is not explained, and with no output schema, the description does not mention return values or response format, leaving some gaps.

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%, but the description only mentions CPF/CNPJ, not the 'completo' boolean parameter. It also does not explain that both Cpf and Cnpj are required (which is unusual) or any relationship between them. The description only partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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?

Description states 'Consulta simplificada dos processos judiciais de uma pessoa ou empresa a partir do CPF ou CNPJ' – clear verb (consulta), resource (processos judiciais), and identifier (CPF/CNPJ). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on judicial process lookup.

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 implies usage context by noting 'Hospedado pela plataforma, sem credenciais, pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago', indicating no authentication needed and prepaid billing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion 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 provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the useful instruction to include conversation data but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits such as side effects or external communication. It doesn't 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, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose and a key usage tip without unnecessary words.

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 (3 params, no output schema), and annotations cover safety. However, the description fails to explain the required 'message' parameter and 'context', leaving gaps that could confuse an agent. It's adequate 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'conversation' parameter (include recent messages for reproduction) but leaves the required 'message' and optional 'context' unexplained, providing only partial compensation.

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 and resource ('Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback') and is distinct from sibling tools, none of which handle bug reporting.

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 by stating what the tool is for and instructs to include the conversation array for reproduction, giving clear context. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but none of the siblings overlap in functionality.

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, covering safety. The description adds that it reports both platform and adapter versions, which is useful context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and covers the essential information.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete. It fully explains what the tool does, and the annotations cover safety, making this a well-rounded definition.

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 zero parameters, the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description provides full clarity about what the tool returns.

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 function with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or toolkit_info, 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 description clearly implies the tool is for checking version information, typically for debugging or compatibility verification. While it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention sibling tools, the context is unambiguous for a trivial version display tool.

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context about the specific return contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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 core action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then elaborates with a colon-separated list of details. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description must fully explain the return value. It does so thoroughly, enumerating the four key aspects of the toolkit state, and it aligns with the annotations. There are no gaps in understanding what the tool does.

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 covers 100% of them (trivially). Since no parameters exist, the description does not need to add parameter context. The baseline of 4 is appropriate, and no issues are present.

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 the explicit verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource as 'current toolkit state', enumerating installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version or connect, making the purpose 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 clearly conveys that this tool is for inspecting the overall toolkit state, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, leaving a slight gap compared to tools that state 'use X instead'. The context is clear enough though.

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