Protestos Nacional

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

Annotations already mark idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: config header is permanent/non-expiring while pasted token is session-only, and no args returns a login link. 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?

Two dense but well-organized sentences. The flow is logical: recommendation first, then session alternative, then invocation details. No redundant 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?

Covers the login link generation and both auth modes, but does not state the return value when a token is submitted or how errors are reported. Since there is no output schema, this is a notable gap for an authentication 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 schema has one optional token string with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining the token is a JWT for session-only login and that omitting it returns a link, giving the agent complete 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 explains the authentication flow: browser login, copying an access token, and options for permanent vs session login. It is specific about the resource (access token) and distinguishes this tool's IDE-agent context from siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with '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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Best: add it to this server's config as a header' for permanent login, or 'paste it here' for session-only login, and 'no args to get the link'. It doesn't discuss when to use this tool over sibling tools, but offers clear invocation patterns.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful behavior: it explains the two possible return states (authenticated true with empty pending vs. connect_url) and mentions per-install URLs. This goes beyond the safety profile in 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (status and URL retrieval) and the two key scenarios. It is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity, though it could mention how to interpret the URLs.

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 schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters; instead, it clarifies the output semantics, which 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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource: connection status and URLs. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'authenticate' and 'marketplace' by focusing on status reporting, not actions.

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 context on expected output in different states (connected vs. missing credentials) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Usage is implied rather than directly guided.

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 only give generic hints (not read-only, not truly idempotent), but the description discloses specific behaviors: invoke runs uninstalled MCPs without bloating the toolkit, auth/payment failures produce links the user must open, writes require workspace owner/admin, and installed state flags appear in search/describe. 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?

The description is long but densely packed, with the core flow front-loaded and key distinctions emphasized. Some minor friction: the Portuguese word 'pontualmente' is used before its English gloss, and the prompt-library content could be split, but overall every sentence carries operational value.

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 (14 actions, 23 params, no output schema), the description covers most important contexts: workflow, install vs invoke, billing/auth links, permissions, and prompt library. It lacks a brief note on response/return shape and does not enumerate per-action parameters, but these are secondary to the core selection and invocation logic.

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 there are 23 params, so the description must compensate. It explains the core parameters implicitly (action values, mcp_id, tool_id, prompt_vars, etc.) and introduces the workflow, but it never maps all params to actions (e.g., limit, immediate, conversation, tier_slug, cancel_reason). The high-level meaning is clear, but many parameters remain under-specified.

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 execution gateway, with explicit verbs: search discovers MCPs, describe returns profiles, and invoke RUNS a tool. It differentiates itself from sibling tools (authenticate, connect, toolkit_info, etc.) by being the in-platform catalog and one-off runtime, not a single-purpose utility.

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 explicit decision rules: use invoke for one-off/single use, install only for permanent toolkit addition, list_tools for currently callable tools, request_mcp when nothing fits. It also gives a canonical action=search → describe → invoke flow, and describes the retry behavior after returning connect/checkout links.

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 valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes the tool is hosted without credentials, requires prepaid credits, queries official bureaus, and imposes legal obligations on the client. This complements the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations 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 a single, reasonably sized paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and follows with necessary context. Each sentence contributes either purpose, data sources, payment, or legal compliance, with no wasted 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 description covers purpose, data sources, payment, and legal basis, but omits return value details and does not resolve parameter ambiguity. With no output schema, the absence of response format guidance is a notable gap, though annotations provide safety context.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description must clarify parameters. It implies CPF/CNPJ are identifiers for individuals and legal entities, but does not explain why both are required or how to choose between them. The optional 'completo' parameter is not described at all, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 retrieves existence and data of protests for individuals and legal entities across Brazil, providing a specific resource and scope. It effectively distinguishes itself from unrelated sibling utility tools.

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 clear context on when to use the tool, including prerequisites like prepaid credit and legal basis under LGPD. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient given the sibling tools 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 already indicate readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and the description does not contradict these. It adds a note about including conversation data for reproduction, but does not explain any side effects, permissions, or return behavior, so it provides limited 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the purpose and the key parameter tip efficiently.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits the meaning of the required 'message' field and what happens after reporting. A user/agent would need more clarity on expected input format and 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?

The schema has zero description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies that 'conversation' should contain recent messages for reproduction, but does not describe the required 'message' parameter or the optional 'context', leaving the most important parameter undocumented.

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 verb 'Report' and the scope 'a bug, missing feature, or send feedback', giving a specific purpose that distinguishes it from unrelated sibling tools such as authenticate or marketplace.

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 (when reporting a bug or sending feedback) but provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions. It does mention to include the conversation array for reproduction, which is a usage hint but not about tool selection.

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 agent knows this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond stating what it shows (versions), so it does not exceed the information provided by 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, declarative sentence that directly states the function with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it doesn't specify the output format or the source of version information, which could be useful context for the agent.

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 no parameter explanation is needed. Per guidelines, 0 params gives a baseline of 4, and the description correctly makes no parameter references.

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 identifies the exact resource: current MCP platform and adapter versions. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace, which serve entirely 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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as toolkit_info which might also provide platform information. The usage is implied by the tool's name and description, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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 read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying exactly what state information is returned, going beyond the annotations to describe the output contents. 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that is information-dense without redundancy. Every element serves to clarify the tool's purpose and output. No wasted 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains the return value's content. It covers all critical aspects an agent needs to know: what is returned (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, tool counts). Sufficient for this simple informational 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?

Tool has zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter burden. The baseline of 4 for 0-param tools applies; the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state') with enumerated details (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like authenticate or 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 makes clear it is for retrieving status information rather than performing actions, but it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. Context is clear enough for an agent to select it when needing toolkit state.

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