Receita Federal: Situação Fiscal

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds context by distinguishing permanent (config-based) vs session-only (token-based) authentication. It discloses that a no-arg call generates a login link, providing behavioral transparency beyond the schema. No contradiction with 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by alternative configurations. Each sentence earns its place with no fluff or redundant 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?

Given the simple one-optional-parameter shape and no output schema, the description covers the full usage flow: browser login, token capture, persistence vs session, and no-arg link retrieval. It could mention error cases or exact return format, but for this low-complexity tool it is sufficient.

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 single `token` parameter has no schema description, but the description fully explains it: a JWT copied from the browser, used for session-only login. It also clarifies the parameter is optional by explaining the no-args behavior, effectively compensating for the 0% schema 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 is for authentication/login to MCP.AI from IDE agents, explaining the browser-based login flow. It specifies the exact resource (MCP.AI) and action (log in, copy access token), distinguishing it from generic tools like connect or marketplace. There is no tautology or vagueness.

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 contextual instructions: users can either configure a persistent Authorization header or pass a token for a session-only login. It also states that calling with no arguments returns the login link, giving clear guidance on invocation variants. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool, but that's acceptable for an auth utility.

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 destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description does not contradict these, and adds the conditional behavior of returning connect_url vs authenticated:true. However, it does not disclose details about the return structure or any other behavioral traits such as rate limits or required auth.

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, concise and informative. It covers purpose and key behavioral outcomes. It is well-structured, though it might be shortened slightly, but it 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?

Given the simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior. It explains the return status and URL scenarios, which is adequate. Sibling tools are not addressed, but the tool is simple enough.

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 schema provides all necessary information. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no additional parameter semantics because there are none.

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 connection status and URLs, and it explains the conditional behavior when credentials are missing. It is distinct from siblings because it says 'when all providers are connected', which is not a full description of the connection state.

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 (check connection status) but does not explicitly state when to use or not use alternatives. It mentions conditions (when credentials are missing) which provide some context, but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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, etc.), the description discloses critical behaviors: invoke works even when MCP not installed, returns connect/checkout links based on auth/payment state, and writes require workspace owner/admin. It also explains installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace flags.

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?

Despite being long, it is efficiently structured: opens with the core identity and flow, then highlights key behavioral caveats, and systematically covers each action group. Every sentence adds essential information, and the front-loaded layout aids quick scanning.

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 23-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all actions, authentication, payment, permissions, and the prompt library, leaving no major gap. The only omitted details are exact response formats, which are not strictly necessary given no output schema.

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 parameter descriptions, the description compensates by thoroughly explaining the 'action' parameter (all enum values) and providing context for likely parameters (mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, prompt_*). However, some secondary parameters like 'immediate' and 'conversation' are not explicitly described, which is acceptable given the tool's breadth but leaves small 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: the official mcp.ai marketplace for discovering and running MCPs, plus a prompt library. It specifies the core flow (search, describe, invoke) and distinguishes from sibling tools by covering a broad catalog management role, not just a single focused operation.

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 when-to-use guidance: prefer invoke for one-off use, install for permanent addition, and request_mcp when nothing fits. It clarifies the difference between search/describe and invoke, and notes permission requirements (owner/admin for writes).

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 mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'sem credenciais da plataforma' (no platform credentials needed), 'pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago' (paid per query), and 'não é dado sigiloso' (data is not confidential) plus LGPD controller responsibilities. It does not mention failure modes or output, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 three sentences and mostly efficient. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. Minor redundancy exists with 'Hospedado pela plataforma, sem credenciais da plataforma', but overall it is concise and structured acceptably.

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 six undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It does not explain the return format, how authentication parameters interact, or what 'situação fiscal' includes operationally. It covers commercial and legal context but lacks essential operational details.

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 any of the six parameters (login_cpf, login_senha, pkcs12_cert, pkcs12_pass, perfil_procurador_cpf, perfil_procurador_cnpj) or their relationships. Parameter names hint at meaning, but there is no guidance on required combinations or formats, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 performs a consultation: 'consulta em fonte oficial' and 'Consulta informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros'. It identifies the resource as Brazilian official tax situation data and is distinct from the unrelated sibling tools. However, 'situação fiscal' is somewhat broad and not precisely scoped.

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 contextual usage details: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, costs prepaid credits per query, and involves LGPD responsibilities. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so guidance is implied rather than 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?

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds context about including the conversation array for reproduction, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose what happens after submission (e.g., no response, tracking ID) or any rate limits. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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, concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes a key usage hint (conversation array) without fluff. Slightly more detail on parameters would be helpful, but it's 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?

With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the 'context' parameter, the expected format of 'message', or what happens after submission. For a feedback tool, it should clarify how to structure the message and whether any response is expected. The conversation array hint is good but not enough.

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 mentions 'conversation array' but doesn't explain the 'context' parameter or the format of 'message'. The description adds some meaning for 'conversation' but leaves 'context' and 'message' undefined beyond their names. This is insufficient given zero schema 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: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It uses a specific verb ('report') and resource ('bug/feature/feedback'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on user feedback rather than system operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other tools like 'connect' or 'authenticate', but the purpose is clear 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 when to use it (when reporting issues or feedback) but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. It mentions including the conversation array for reproduction, which gives some context, but lacks exclusions or alternative tool references.

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, which the description supports by indicating a non-mutating 'Show' operation. The description adds the specific scope ('MCP platform and adapter') beyond what annotations contain, though it doesn't detail side effects (none expected).

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 gets straight to the point. No waste, every word is meaningful.

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 version tool, the description is adequately complete. It doesn't mention return format, but no output schema exists, and for such a simple utility it's not necessary. Overall, it fits its purpose well.

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 schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and the baseline for no parameters is 4, which is appropriate here.

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 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions' uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('MCP platform and adapter versions'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools. It goes beyond a tautology by detailing exactly which versions are reported.

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 usage is implied by the name and description—checking versions—but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternative tools. 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context about what information the tool reveals, going beyond the annotations without contradicting 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?

A single, grammatically tight sentence front-loads the primary purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the specific components. Every word contributes meaning with no fluff or repetition.

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, parameterless, read-only tool, the description fully explains the return content. No output schema exists, but the description covers the necessary information an agent needs, and annotations handle the behavioral safety guarantees.

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 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter burden for the description to bear. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately ignores 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Returns' with a clear resource ('current toolkit state') and enumerates exactly what the output includes (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like show_version (version info) and connect (establishing connections).

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 context is clear: use when needing the current toolkit state, which implies checking installed MCPs, connection status, and accounts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the focused scope (state vs. actions) makes the intended usage apparent against sibling tools.

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