SEFAZ AM: IPVA

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

Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive; the description adds context by explaining the no-args behavior returns a link and the token is a JWT. It aligns with annotations and adds useful detail about the two authentication modes, though it doesn't enumerate side effects.

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 verbose but well-structured, front-loading the purpose and then presenting the recommended and alternative methods. Each sentence adds meaningful information without 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?

Covers both authentication paths and indicates the output for the no-args case (link). While it doesn't detail success/failure responses for the token path, it is sufficient for a simple auth tool with 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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining the optional 'token' parameter: pass a JWT after the user pastes it, or omit to receive the login link. This makes the parameter's meaning 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 purpose: to authenticate IDE agents with MCP.AI via browser login and token. It specifically explains the login flow and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on authentication rather than connectivity or other utilities.

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 instructions on when and how to use: either add a permanent header to the config or call with a token for session-only login, and call with no args to get the login link. This gives clear decision guidance for the agent.

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, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds context about specific fields returned (authenticated, pending, connect_url) and conditional behavior, but could go further in explaining differences between 'connect_url' and 'per-install URLs'.

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 sentences deliver all necessary context: what is returned and how it varies. Every clause earns its place, and the description is front-loaded with the core purpose. Excellent example of concise, high-value writing.

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 there are no parameters and the output schema is absent, the description provides sufficient context for a status-check tool. The conditional behaviors are useful and make the tool's output predictable under different states.

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 parameters, there is no schema to enrich, so the description carries no parameter burden. The baseline of 4 applies 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 clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, specifying what happens under different conditions (all providers connected vs. missing credentials). It is distinct from siblings like show_version or toolkit_info by focusing on connection state, though it could more explicitly contrast with 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 implies usage as a status read (returns authenticated, pending, connect_url), but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternative status tools like show_version or toolkit_info. The readOnlyHint annotation supports its safe read nature, but the description alone doesn't provide 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.

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: writes require workspace owner/admin, invoke runs one-off without bloating the toolkit, auth failures return a connect link, payment failures return a checkout link, and prompt links open without login. There is no contradiction with the provided 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 dense block of text, but nearly every sentence earns its place. The core flow is front-loaded and the key invoke/install distinction is highlighted, though bullet points or paragraph breaks would improve scannability.

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 23 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, this description is unusually complete: it covers the main action flow, auth and payment edge cases, permanent vs one-off installs, and the prompt library. Minor gaps remain for actions like resume and params like immediate or tier_slug, preventing a perfect score.

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 description coverage, the description carries most of the parameter meaning: action=search/describe/invoke, mcp_id and tool_id in the flow, and prompt_vars/prompt_slug/publish behavior. It does not explain every parameter, but it adds strong semantic value for the core action-based parameters.

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 mcp.ai catalog and execution layer for MCPs, with a concrete search→describe→invoke flow and a separate prompt-library area. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as the in-platform hub rather than a specific authentication, connection, or single-MCP tool.

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 explicit guidance on when to use invoke vs install: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT.' It also names fallbacks like list_tools for currently callable tools and request_mcp for when nothing fits, making the selection logic clear.

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 readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds one useful behavioral note: the conversation array should include recent messages for reproduction. However, it does not disclose what happens after submission, whether reports create persistent records, or how idempotency is handled.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by a relevant usage instruction. There is no fluff or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 three-parameter tool without an output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it states the purpose and highlights the conversation parameter. However, it leaves message and context semantics to inference and calls conversation an 'array' even though the schema type is string, which could confuse 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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the conversation parameter as an array for reproduction, but the required message parameter and the optional context parameter are not described. Context in particular is ambiguous despite having a default value.

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 action and object ('Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback') and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like authenticate, connect, and sefaz_am_ipva_consultar. It is immediately obvious what the tool is for.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: whenever the user has a bug, missing feature, or feedback. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the intended use case is unambiguous given the sibling set.

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, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context about being hosted on the platform, no credentials required, prepaid credit model, and LGPD responsibility. However, it does not disclose behavior like response format, error handling, or rate limits. This is adequate 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 is relatively brief, about 3 sentences, but includes legal jargon about LGPD and data controller responsibilities that may not be essential for tool selection. It is somewhat front-loaded with 'SEFAZ AM: IPVA', but includes a lengthy legal disclaimer that could be shortened. Overall, it is concise but not maximally 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain return values. It does not mention what IPVA data will be returned (e.g., amount due, vehicle details, etc.). It also omits input requirements for renavam (e.g., format, 11 digits). The description covers payment/legal but misses functional completeness.

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 one parameter (renavam) with no description in the schema. The description does not mention renavam at all, nor does it explain what format or purpose it serves. With 0% schema coverageathe description completely fails to compensate, leaving the agent without any guidance on the parameter.

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 queries IPVA (vehicle property tax) from SEFAZ AM, an official Brazilian source, using a specific verb 'consulta' (query). It distinguishes itself from generic platform tools by specifying the resource (IPVA) and jurisdiction (Amazonas). However, it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools, though none seem directly related.

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 mentions the tool is for IPVA consultation and that it uses official sources, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references are given. The only context is payment model and LGPD compliance, which do not help select between tools.

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, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., version format, frequency of updates) beyond repeating the read-only nature, so it only meets the baseline for annotation-bearing tools.

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, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and subject. It contains no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail, making it exemplary in conciseness.

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 extremely simple (no parameters, no output schema), and the description, combined with thorough annotations, fully covers what the agent needs to know. No additional context is required for correct invocation.

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 and 100% schema coverage (no properties), there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not introduce any misleading information, so this score 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 ('Show') and clear resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), unambiguously distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and report_bug. It leaves no doubt 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 purpose implicitly defines when to use it (to check versions), and no alternatives are suggested. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, but given the trivial nature of the tool and the sibling set, this is adequate.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by naming exactly what state is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools), going beyond the annotation data.

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 that enumerates the key outputs without redundancy. Every phrase contributes meaning, and there is 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description fully explains what the agent can expect: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it and interpret the result.

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 description bears no responsibility for parameter clarification. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the return payload instead.

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 identifies the resource ('current toolkit state') with concrete details (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like show_version and 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 makes the purpose clear but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. For a read-only state inspection tool, the usage context is implied, yet it does not reference alternatives or when this tool should be preferred over siblings.

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