SEFAZ AM: Certidão Negativa de Débitos (Certificado Digital)

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

It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: no-args returns a login link, token arg establishes a session-only login, and config-based auth is permanent and non-expiring. This complements the idempotentHint annotation without contradicting it.

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 front-loaded with the core flow and remains compact overall. It is somewhat dense and run-on in the second sentence, but every part contributes necessary setup or invocation 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 one-optional-parameter auth tool with no output schema, the description covers the main invocation modes and the config alternative. It does not mention error cases or response details, but the core usage context is sufficiently covered.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It does: `token` is explained as an optional JWT pasted by the user for session login, and the no-args case is explicitly described as retrieving a link. This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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: authenticate to MCP.AI by logging in through a browser, obtaining an access token, and either configuring it as a header or passing it as a session token. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling `connect` tool, so it misses the full sibling-differentiation bar.

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 practical guidance: use the config header approach for a permanent connection, or pass a token for a session-only login, or call with no arguments to receive a link. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this 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 declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: what happens when all providers are connected (authenticated:true, empty pending[]) versus when credentials are missing (connect_url and per-install URLs). This goes beyond the annotations with useful conditional context.

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-load the purpose and then provide conditional details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or filler.

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 simple (zero parameters, rich annotations), and the description covers key response behavior: authenticated flag, pending array, and connect URLs in missing-credential scenarios. This is enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, even without 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered and the description needs no parameter details. With no parameters to explain, the baseline 4 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 a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('connection status and URLs'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate by framing this as a status/read operation rather than an authentication 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 implies when to use by describing scenarios ('When all providers are connected', 'When credentials are missing'), but it does not explicitly state 'use this to check connection status' or name alternatives. Usage context is inferable but not directly spelled out.

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?

Without annotations covering behavioral nuances (readOnlyHint is false but not detailed), the description provides substantial behavioral disclosure: it says invoke runs tools even when not installed, returns connect/checkout links on errors, and that write operations require owner/admin. It also explains what installing does (permanent) vs invoke (one-off). This goes beyond typical descriptions and compensates for the lack of 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 and dense, but it front-loads the essential flow. It packs many pieces of information into run-on sentences, making it hard to parse quickly. For a tool with this many actions, some structure (bullets or separate sections) would improve clarity, but it does cover the necessary details.

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 sheer complexity (23 parameters, 14 actions, no output schema, no per-parameter descriptions), the description is remarkably thorough. It explains the action enum's purpose, the difference between installing and invoking, auth/payment handling, and even the prompt library. It lacks a detailed parameter-by-parameter breakdown, but the narrative covers the most critical aspects, making it usable for an 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 schema coverage is 0% for the parameters, but the description names the main parameters (action, mcp_id, tool_id, prompt_slug, etc.) and explains the flow. However, it does not detail each parameter's format or when to use which, relying on the agent to infer from the action. Since there are many parameters, a more comprehensive mapping would improve understanding, but the description provides enough context for common actions.

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 explicitly states the marketplace's purpose: it is a catalog of MCPs and tools, and it can run them. It describes the core flow (search, describe, invoke) and the action enum, which distinguishes it from simple lookup tools. However, it mixes in many secondary capabilities (prompt library, billing) that could be separate tools, slightly muddying the primary purpose for an agent scanning quickly.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: it says 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'. It also contrasts with sibling tools by naming 'list_tools lists what is callable right now' and mentions 'use search/describe...'. This is exemplary usage 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 already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds that the conversation should be included for reproduction but does not explain ticket creation, feedback delivery, or response behavior. This is adequate but not rich, and there is no contradiction 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 two sentences with every part earning its place. It clearly states the purpose and the key repro/input guidance without 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 parameter set and clear annotations, the description provides enough operational context to submit a bug/feedback. The gap is the potentially misleading 'conversation array' wording and no mention of what the response or next step looks like, but completeness remains reasonable.

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 do more. It mentions the conversation and its purpose, but calls it an 'array' while the schema defines it as type string. The message and context parameters are left to their names, and message is not elaborated beyond being the reported bug/feedback content.

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 names the action and target: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This provides a specific verb and resource and distinguishes the tool from unrelated siblings like marketplace, authenticate, and sefaz_am_certidao_debitos_cert_consultar.

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 tells the agent exactly when to use the tool: to report bugs, missing features, or submit feedback. It also instructs to include recent messages via the conversation field for reproduction. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or direct alternatives, but the sibling names are clearly distinct.

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?

A descrição revela comportamentos importantes: hospedagem, ausência de credenciais, cobrança por consulta, uso de dados públicos e conformidade com LGPD. Não contradiz as anotações (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) e fornece contexto extra sobre o caráter pago e legal.

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 longa e repete termos como 'consulta', 'fonte oficial' e 'não é dado sigiloso'. Poderia ser mais enxuta, mas não é excessivamente prolixa. A estrutura é razoável, embora com redundâncias.

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?

Falta contexto essencial: qual será o retorno (formato do documento?), como o certificado é usado, e se IE/CNPJ são mutuamente exclusivos ou opcionais. Sem output schema, a descrição deveria explicar o resultado, mas não o faz, deixando o agente sem expectativa clara.

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?

A descrição não explica nenhum dos parâmetros. Não define IE, CNPJ, pkcs12_cert ou pkcs12_pass, nem suas funções ou obrigatoriedade. A cobertura do schema é 0%, e a descrição não compensa essa lacuna, deixando o agente sem entender como preencher os campos.

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 especifica claramente o objetivo: consultar a Certidão Negativa de Débitos do SEFAZ AM com certificado digital. O verbo 'consultar' está implícito e o recurso é único, distinguindo-se dos irmãos genéricos como 'authenticate' e '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?

A descrição indica que é uma consulta paga com créditos pré-pagos e sem credenciais da plataforma, o que orienta o uso. Contudo, não menciona explicitamente que IE ou CNPJ são necessários, nem que o certificado deve ser válido, deixando lacunas sobre pré-requisitos.

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 a bit more context by specifying 'MCP platform and adapter versions' and the 'current' nature of the information, which is useful 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes meaning and it is appropriately sized for such a simple tool.

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 this is a no-parameter, read-only version information tool with strong annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. No output schema is needed for such a straightforward operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so there is nothing meaningful to add. The description clarifies what version information is returned, providing value beyond the empty schema.

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' with a clear resource: 'the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' This is precise and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 the tool is used to check version information but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose it over sibling tools such as toolkit_info. For a simple version tool, this implied usage is adequate but not 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 already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds detail about the returned content, which is consistent but does not disclose additional behavioral traits 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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output.

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 low complexity (no parameters, simple state output), the description is complete. It specifies what the state includes, making it sufficient for understanding the tool's 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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline score of 3 applies since no additional parameter details are required.

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, including installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like show_version 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 implies usage for inspecting state but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. It provides clear context on what the tool does, but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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