Receita PJ QSA + Participação

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

Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important behavioral context: config-based tokens are permanent and non-expiring, while token-based logins via this tool are session-only. It clarifies the token acquisition flow (browser login, copy token) and the two call patterns.

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 moderately long but every sentence provides essential guidance: the overall purpose, the permanent configuration option, and the session-based login flow. It is structured into readable clauses with clear instructions, though it could be tightened into more discrete sentences.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the primary usage scenarios: obtaining a link with no args, authenticating with a pasted token, and the permanent alternative via config. It doesn't explicitly state return values or error behavior, but the complexity is low and the instructions are 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 schema provides no description for the token property (0% schema coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining the token parameter is a JWT to be pasted and that calling with no arguments returns a login link. It also explains the config header alternative, adding complete semantic meaning.

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 this tool handles authentication for IDE agents ('log in in the browser, copy the access token'), identifying the login flow and token acceptance. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'connect' tool, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 usage alternatives: recommends adding the token to config for permanent connections and using this tool for session-only login. It also defines when to call with no args (to get a link) versus with a token (after user pastes). This is clear guidance on when and how to use the 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 signal read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable conditional behavior by describing the response states: authenticated:true with empty pending[], and connect_url when credentials are missing. This goes 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds essential detail about the different response states. No waste.

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 no-parameter tool without an output schema, the description adequately explains the return values in both connection states. Minor ambiguity about the structure of 'per-install URLs' and 'pending' details, but not significant.

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 everything vacuously. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter 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 clearly states 'Returns connection status and URLs,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status checking rather than performing authentication.

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 context for when to use: when checking provider connection status, with explicit conditions for connected vs. missing credentials. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use, leaving a slight gap.

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 goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing side effects: invoke runs a tool without adding it to the toolkit, install makes it permanent, writes require workspace owner/admin, and payment/credential flows return connect/checkout links. The openWorldHint and readOnlyHint are consistent with the described behavior; 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 long but well-structured with a core flow and a KEY callout. Each sentence adds meaningful context about capabilities, usage, or side effects. Minor stylistic quirks (e.g., 'pontualmente') and emphasis capitalization slightly affect polish, but the density is justified given the tool's complexity.

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 hub tool with 14 actions, 23 parameters, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers discovery, execution, installation, billing, permissions, and the prompt library. It omits only minor details (e.g., the exact semantics of action 'resume') and does not describe return structures, but it is far more complete than typical.

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 23 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description carries heavy responsibility. It explains the pivotal action enum, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, and prompt-related parameters. However, several parameters like cancel_reason, immediate, report_context, and conversation are not explicitly described, though their names and enums provide some inference.

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 marketplace as the official in-platform catalog of MCPs/tools and the way to run them. It enumerates the core actions (search, describe, invoke, install, prompt library) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and receita_pj_qsa_consultar by scope and function.

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?

Excellent usage guidance: it explicitly says when to use invoke vs install (prefer invoke for one-off, install for permanent), when to use search/describe, list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, and request_mcp. It also explains edge cases like credential/connect links and checkout flows, leaving little ambiguity 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?

As anotações já declaram readOnlyHint=true e destructiveHint=false, então não há contradição. A descrição adiciona contexto valioso sobre autenticação (sem credenciais), custo (crédito pré-pago), natureza pública dos dados e a responsabilidade do controlador sob a LGPD. Isso complementa as anotações, cobrindo aspectos que elas não informam.

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 descrição é composta por três frases, com o propósito principal na primeira e informações contextuais (pagamento, dados públicos, LGPD) nas seguintes. Cada frase traz informação relevante e não há repetição do que está estruturado. É concisa sem ser incompleta demais.

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?

Não há output schema, então a descrição deveria dar alguma pista sobre o formato do retorno, mas não o faz. Também não detalha o significado de 'completo'. Por outro lado, as anotações já cobrem a segurança da operação (read-only, idempotente) e a descrição cobre a finalidade e aspectos legais, tornando a ferramenta utilizável, mas com lacunas.

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?

O schema tem cobertura de 0% e a descrição explica que o CNPJ é o ponto de partida da consulta, dando significado ao parâmetro obrigatório. No entanto, o parâmetro 'completo' (boolean) não é explicado, deixando sua função ambígua. A descrição compensa parcialmente a falta de cobertura do schema, mas não completamente.

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?

A descrição começa com o verbo específico 'Consulta' e identifica o recurso exato: quadro societário de uma empresa e participação dos sócios em outras empresas, a partir do CNPJ. Não há ambiguidade e a descrição se diferencia claramente das ferramentas irmãs, que são utilitários de plataforma sem relação com consulta de dados empresariais.

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?

A descrição estabelece o contexto de uso ao dizer que a consulta é feita via CNPJ e que os dados são de acesso público, pagos por consulta com crédito pré-pago. Embora não mencione explicitamente quando não usar ou alternativas, a ausência de ferramentas irmãs similares torna o contexto suficiente para o agente decidir quando acionar a ferramenta.

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 this is a non-read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds the instruction to include the conversation array for reproduction, which is helpful, but it doesn't disclose what happens after reporting (e.g., ticket creation, confirmation) or any side effects 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, no redundant wording.

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 gives the core purpose and one key parameter use, but lacks information about return values or post-submission behavior (no output schema). The 'context' parameter is unexplained, and the 'conversation' type discrepancy (array vs string) isn't clarified. For a simple tool it's 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?

The description clarifies the 'conversation' parameter as an array containing recent messages, which is not explained in the schema. However, 'context' and 'message' are not explicitly defined, leaving their semantics to inference given the tool's purpose.

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 'Report' and lists three resource types: bug, missing feature, feedback. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which relate to 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?

It implicitly indicates when to use it (when there's a bug or feedback) and provides explicit guidance to include the conversation array for reproduction. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though no near alternatives exist.

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 (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already convey the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the basic purpose, but it is consistent with 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, concise and front-loaded with the verb 'Show'. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary 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?

For a simple no-parameter, read-only tool, the description adequately conveys what the tool does and the output (versions). No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently implies the return value.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter detail to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies due to the absence of parameters, and the description does not need to compensate.

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 shows the current MCP platform and adapter versions with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like toolkit_info, which may also provide information.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as toolkit_info. It simply states the action without contextual instructions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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 safety properties (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds meaningful context by specifying exactly what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This goes beyond merely restating the tool's name and gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's behavior and output content, which is fully consistent with 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 sentence of moderate length, front-loaded with the core action ('Returns the current toolkit state') followed by a parenthetical list of contents. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy, fluff, or irrelevant details. It is both 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?

For a simple tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is sufficiently complete. It enumerates the return content at a high level (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts), giving the agent a clear understanding of what to expect. No further information is necessary for effective invocation or result interpretation.

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 input schema is an empty object. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-parameter tools since there is no parameter semantics to clarify. The description also does not need to compensate for any schema 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 specifies the tool's function with the verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource as 'current toolkit state', enumerating the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version (version info) and marketplace (marketplace tools), making its unique purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly defining the tool's output: if an agent needs to know the toolkit state, this is the tool to call. There are no explicit exclusions or references to alternatives, but given the tool's specific and non-overlapping scope, this is sufficient context. No prerequisites or special conditions are mentioned, but none are needed for a simple read-only info tool.

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