Dados Cadastrais PF (México)

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

Annotations already mark the tool as idempotent and not read-only. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by explaining that the config method yields a permanent non-expiring connection, while the token method is session-only, and calling with no args returns a link. These behavioral nuances help the agent anticipate outcomes.

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 but packs in multiple instructions and alternatives. It front-loads the purpose and uses disambiguation between methods, though it could be slightly tighter. Overall, it is readable and not overly verbose.

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 no output schema, the description covers the main usage modes and the link behavior, but it doesn't specify what the token-based call returns (e.g., success or error) or how errors are handled. This leaves some ambiguity, but for a simple authentication tool it is minimally 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 schema merely lists token as a string with no description (0% coverage). The description fully explains the parameter: it is a JWT, optional, and determines whether login is session-only or if no args returns a link. This completely compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 handling authentication for MCP.AI, with specific actions like logging in via browser, copying tokens, and configuring headers. It distinguishes between two modes (server config vs session token) which adds specificity, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 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 instructions on when to use each method: 'Best: add it to this server's config...' and 'Or paste it here for a session-only login', along with guidance on calling with token vs no args. It doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing conditional return states (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs connect_url when credentials missing), which is behavior 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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence contributes meaningful details about behavior, 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?

It covers the two main scenarios (all connected vs credentials missing) but does not address partial connectivity, which is a likely intermediate state. Terms like 'pending[]' and 'per-install URLs' are not explained, leaving some ambiguity 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 the baseline is 4. There is no parameter information needed in the description, and the schema confirms an empty properties object.

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 specifies a clear action ('Returns connection status and URLs') and distinguishes it from the sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than performing an action. It also describes the two key outcomes, making its scope 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 provides clear context for when to call it: to check whether all providers are connected or if credentials are missing. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like 'authenticate' for performing the login, so it lacks explicit exclusion/alternative guidance.

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 supply generic hints (readOnly=false, openWorld=true), so the description carries the transparency burden and does so well. It discloses that invoke runs tools one-off without installing or bloating the tool list, that missing credentials produce a connect link, that empty wallets produce a checkout/top-up link, and that writes require workspace owner/admin. 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 a long, dense single paragraph, which makes scanning harder, but nearly every sentence adds crucial operational detail. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and workflow, and the content justifies its length given the tool's 14-action scope; a bulleted structure would have improved readability.

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 complex multi-action marketplace tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral dimensions: discover, describe, invoke, install, subscribe/cancel, permissions, and the prompt library, including auth/payment fallbacks. It does not specify exact return shapes for every sub-action, but the agent has sufficient information to select and invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 description coverage, the description must compensate, and it meaningfully explains the action enum, the role of mcp_id/tool_id in the discovery→invoke flow, prompt variables, and billing/cancel semantics. However, several parameters (limit, immediate, tier_slug, conversation, prompt_category, prompt_description) are never explicitly explained, so the compensation is strong but incomplete.

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 immediately identifies the tool as 'the official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them,' giving a specific resource and a clear high-level purpose. It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools by covering the full search→describe→invoke flow, installation, billing, and prompt-library actions, making its scope 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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Core flow: action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns one MCP's full profile → invoke RUNS that tool,' plus 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT.' It also names alternatives like request_mcp when nothing fits, and differentiates the prompt library from MCP discovery.

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. The description adds valuable context beyond these: it's hosted by the platform, requires no credentials, is pay-per-query, accesses public official data, and specifies LGPD/data-controller responsibilities. This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's operational and legal constraints.

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 four sentences long and includes essential operational details (pay-per-query, no credentials, public data, LGPD compliance). While slightly legalistic, each sentence adds relevant context. It is reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 has no output schema, so the description should clarify what data is returned, but it only says 'dados cadastrais' without specifics. It also fails to explain the 'completo' parameter. However, it provides substantial context about public access, payment, and legal compliance, making it minimally viable but with clear 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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the required parameter CURP ('a partir do CURP') but does not explain the optional boolean parameter 'completo' at all. With two parameters, completely failing to describe one is a significant gap.

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 begins with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'Dados cadastrais de uma pessoa física no México a partir do CURP' (cadastral data of a physical person in Mexico via CURP). This uniquely identifies the tool's purpose and clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which serve entirely different functions.

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 the tool: for consulting public official records using a CURP, with no credentials required and prepaid credit. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so the intended usage is unambiguous.

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 false, destructiveHint false, and idempotentHint true, providing a safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context, such as 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction,' which hints at how the API expects data but does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or response behavior. With annotations present, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 consists of exactly two sentences that are front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a specific usage hint. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary fluff or repetition of schema 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?

The tool is relatively simple with three parameters and no output schema. The description covers the overall purpose and one parameter, but omits details about the other parameters, return values, or any prerequisites. Given the weak schema coverage, this is only moderately 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 only briefly references the 'conversation' parameter via 'Include the conversation array,' but does not explain the required 'message' parameter or the 'context' parameter. This leaves parameter semantics largely unexplained for an agent trying to correctly invoke the tool.

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.' It also gives a concrete usage hint about including the conversation array, which further clarifies the scope and distinguishes it from unrelated sibling 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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to report issues or feedback) and even gives a specific instruction (include conversation array). While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the sibling tools are unrelated, making the usage context clear. The absence of exclusions is acceptable given the unique purpose.

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. The description adds that it displays platform and adapter versions, which clarifies the return content without contradicting 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 entire description is a single, precise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource 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 no-parameter, read-only version check, this short description is fully sufficient. There is no output schema, but the tool's purpose is simple enough that no additional context is required.

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 is empty with 100% coverage by definition. Baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description needs no further parameter explanation.

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 'show' and identifies the exact resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), clearly distinguishing this as a system information tool. It is unambiguous and aligns with the title 'Show Version'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like toolkit_info or report_bug. Usage is implied for version checks but not explicitly stated, and no exclusions are given.

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 clear. The description adds context about what data is returned, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as caching, recency, or potential delays. Thus it gives some added value but not rich behavioral 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, well-structured sentence that lists the exact contents of the response. No filler or repetition exists, making it highly concise and 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?

This tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema) and the description covers all key aspects of what it returns. It adequately explains what the agent can learn from calling this tool, and the sibling list adds context that this is a state-inspection utility.

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 no parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage (100%). According to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline score of 4; the description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics.

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 the current toolkit state' and enumerates specific elements (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' and 'authenticate' by focusing on the overall state rather than performing an action.

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 does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives like 'connect' or 'show_version'. The intended usage is implied: use this when you need a snapshot of the toolkit's integration state, but no exclusions or comparisons are given.

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