Sanções ONU (Conselho de Segurança)

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses key behaviors: calling without args returns a login link, token use creates a session, and the config header yields a permanent non-expiring connection. This adds meaningful context about session persistence and the authentication flow.

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 somewhat wordy but well-structured, with clear sections for the two authentication modes. Every clause adds value, though it could be tightened slightly without losing 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 single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains the purpose, the two authentication methods, the token format, and the return behavior (link). It lacks only minor details like error handling or prerequisites, but these are reasonably inferable.

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' parameter (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining it's a JWT to be pasted after browser login, and that omitting it triggers the link generation. This makes the parameter's purpose and usage crystal clear.

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: authenticating to MCP.AI by obtaining and using an access token, with explicit instructions for both permanent and session-based logins. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' through its token-focused login flow.

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 scenarios: configuring a permanent header vs. session-only token paste, and specifies when to call with no args vs. with token. However, it doesn't explicitly compare against sibling tools like 'connect', so there's no exclusion 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?

The description discloses behavioral detail beyond annotations: it specifies the exact return structure in two states (all providers connected vs credentials missing), including field names like 'authenticated' and 'pending'. This adds useful context not captured by readOnlyHint or idempotentHint.

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 core purpose and then providing specific scenario-based return values. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 parameter-less tool with no output schema, the description covers the two primary states (all connected and missing credentials) and mentions connect_url and per-install URLs. It does not detail partial connection states or the meaning of 'pending', but it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 complete coverage vacuously. The description naturally has no parameter semantics to add, but the baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing to compensate for.

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, with a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('connection status'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status checking rather than performing authentication, 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 implies usage for checking connection status and retrieving connect URLs when credentials are missing, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info'. The guidance is implicit 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?

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that invoke works even when the MCP is not installed, returns connect links for missing credentials, returns checkout/top-up links for insufficient wallet balance, and requires workspace owner/admin for writes. This is valuable behavioral context not present in readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, then follows a logical flow: discovery, execution, installation, billing, auth, and prompt library. It lacks headings or bullet structure, which slightly hurts scannability, but every sentence contributes substantive guidance and avoids 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?

Given the tool's complexity (23 parameters, 14 actions, no output schema, sparse annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the main flow, one-off vs permanent execution, credential and payment edge cases, permission requirements, billing actions, and the prompt-library subsystem. It even describes behavioral outcomes like connect links and checkout links, compensating well for the absence of an 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?

The schema has zero description coverage across 23 parameters, but the description partially compensates by explaining action=search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe/cancel, list_tools, and the prompt actions. However, it does not define parameter-level details such as arguments format, prompt_vars JSON, immediate, tier_slug, or how query/limit interact with search. The agent must infer much of the parameter semantics from parameter names alone.

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, a catalog of MCPs/tools and a way to run them. It specifies concrete actions like search, describe, invoke, install, and prompt-library functions, and distinguishes itself from siblings by highlighting its unique role in discovery, one-off execution, and permanent installation.

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 an explicit core flow: search discovers MCPs, describe returns profiles, and invoke runs the chosen tool. It gives strong when-to-use guidance, including 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT,' plus clear separation for billing actions like subscribe/cancel and prompt-library searches.

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 idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds useful behavioral context by instructing to include the conversation array for reproduction, which helps the agent prepare a meaningful report.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded. It could benefit from more detail, but current structure is efficient and not wasteful.

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 provides basic intent but omits what happens after reporting (e.g., confirmation, ticket ID), doesn't clarify the conversation string format, and gives no guidance on the required message field. This leaves room for misunderstanding in practical use.

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 explains the conversation parameter's purpose, leaving the required 'message' and optional 'context' unexplained. Additionally, it calls conversation an 'array' while the schema types it as a string, creating 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's function: reporting bugs, missing features, or sending feedback. This verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from the unrelated siblings like authenticate and 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?

It gives clear context for when to use (when reporting issues or feedback) but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives. Since none of the sibling tools are similar, the intended usage is clear without exclusions.

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, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful extra context: the tool is hosted on the platform, requires no credentials, costs prepaid credit per query, and accesses public official data. It also clarifies the client's LGPD obligations, which is valuable 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 a single paragraph of three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds relevant detail (compliance use case, access model, data privacy), though the legal caveat could be seen as slightly verbose. It remains efficient 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?

The description covers purpose, access, cost, and data sensitivity, but does not describe the return value or output format, which matters because there is no output schema. For a simple verification tool this is a notable gap, but the core operational context is adequately addressed.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the parameters (Nome, Sobrenome, completo). It only mentions 'nome' generically, leaving 'completo' ambiguous and failing to clarify how the parameters interact. The description needed to compensate for the empty schema but did not.

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 checks whether a name appears on the consolidated UN Security Council sanctions list, with a specific verb ('Verifica') and a defined resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are unrelated (authenticate, marketplace, etc.).

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 specifies when to use the tool ('para diligência de compliance e AML') and provides practical context (no credentials, pay-per-query with prepaid credit). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are clearly not competing options.

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 the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the subject matter (platform and adapter versions) but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like return format, potential errors, or lack of side effects beyond what annotations provide.

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 unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action verb and target, making it highly 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, read-only, idempotent), the description is mostly complete. It doesn't explicitly describe the return value format, but the intention is obvious for a version-info tool. A score of 4 reflects the minor gap in return representation.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, a no-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4; the description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable.

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', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or marketplace. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 purpose implies this tool should be used when version information is needed, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives or any exclusions. Usage context is implied, not stated.

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying exactly what the returned state includes, which goes beyond the annotations and leaves no surprise about the tool's role.

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 front-loads the core action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the included elements in a convenient colon list. Every word earns its place with no 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, read-only introspection tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the scope and contents of the returned state. It does not explain the exact output format, but that is not required given the absence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity.

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 per the rubric. The description does not need to compensate for schema gaps, and it adds no parameter-related information because none exist. No deduction needed.

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 as 'current toolkit state', then enumerates the exact content: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is highly specific and inherently distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version or authenticate.

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 for inspecting overall toolkit state, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative recommendations. For a simple read-only query, the context is clear enough, but guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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