SEFAZ CE: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

It discloses important behavioral details: no-args returns a link, token-based calls create a session login, and config-header setup creates a permanent connection. Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so the description adds meaningful context without contradicting 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 dense with useful information but somewhat run-on and not broken into clear sentences. Still, every part contributes to understanding the auth flow, and it front-loads the tool's 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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers both invocation modes, explains the permanent vs session distinction, and gives the user/browser workflow. No essential behavior is missing.

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 a single optional 'token' parameter with no description and 0% coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining the token is a JWT that the user pastes, that it is optional, and that omitting it returns a login link 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 clearly identifies the tool as an authentication/login flow for MCP.AI for IDE agents, describing browser login, token retrieval, and passing the token for session login. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like marketplace or report_bug, though it does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named 'connect' 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?

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use each approach: adding the token to server config for a permanent non-expiring connection, or pasting it for a session-only login. It also clarifies the no-args call returns a login link, making invocation conditions very 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the exact return values (authenticated:true with empty pending[], or connect_url) for different states, which is not covered by 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 sentences, highly concise and front-loaded. Every clause adds meaningful information about the tool's behavior.

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?

With no input schema, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description fully describes the two possible outcomes. It is complete for this simple read-only status tool.

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 zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds no parameter-specific info needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4, 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's function: returns connection status and URLs. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on connection state (vs authenticate for auth, or toolkit_info for general info). It also specifies distinct outcomes for different conditions.

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 clearly explains what to expect in different scenarios (all connected vs missing credentials). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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, explaining that invoke runs a tool one-off even when the MCP is not installed, without bloating the toolkit. It discloses authentication/checkout flows, permission requirements ('Writes require workspace owner/admin'), and the difference between permanent install and one-off invoke. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core identity and the main search→describe→invoke flow. It includes a lot of useful detail, but it is a single long block that would benefit from paragraph breaks or section headers, especially around the prompt library and billing behaviors. Still, every sentence serves a distinct 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?

Given the large number of actions and no output schema, the description covers output expectations reasonably well: describe returns tool profiles with pricing/auth, invoke returns connect or checkout links, publish returns mcp.ai/p/<slug> links, and search flags installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace. A few sub-actions like resume, immediate=true, and cancel_comment behavior are not explained, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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 gives meaning to the action parameter and to key concepts like tool_id, mcp_id, and prompt variables, but it does not enumerate which of the 23 parameters are required for each action. Since schema coverage is 0%, the prose compensates only partially; for example, immediate, resume, tier_slug, cancel_comment, request_details, and prompt_targets remain silently implied by the action names.

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 — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It immediately distinguishes its capabilities: discovery (action=search), inspection (describe), execution (invoke), installation, billing, and the separate prompt library. This is much more specific than the tool name alone and differentiates it from siblings like connect, authenticate, and report_bug.

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 action flow guidance: 'action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns one MCP's full profile... → invoke RUNS that tool.' It also tells when to choose invoke versus install ('Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use') and maps all other actions to their responsibilities, including list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, and the prompt actions.

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 idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds context about including the conversation array for reproduction, but doesn't clarify what happens after submission (e.g., whether a report is created, if there is confirmation, or any side effects). The description does not contradict annotations, but it underutilizes the opportunity to provide richer behavioral detail.

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, concise, and front-loaded with the purpose then usage instruction. No wasted words; every sentence contributes meaning.

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 report tool with no output schema stub, the description is adequate but has gaps: it does not mention expected behavior after submission, whether confirmation is provided, or whether the action is synchronous. The idempotency hint in annotations partially covers side effects, but the lack of any statement about return/outcome leaves some ambiguity.

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 description falls back to compensating. It mentions the 'conversation' parameter explicitly ('Include the conversation array'), but does not explain the 'message' (required) or 'context' parameters. Since the required parameter 'message' is not described and 'context' is ambiguous, the description only partially clarifies parameter usage, missing a chance to fully explain input 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 it reports bugs, missing features, or sends feedback, which is a specific and distinct purpose from the sibling tools (e.g., authenticate, connect, sefaz_ce_certidao_debitos_consultar). It is not merely a restatement of the tool name and immediately conveys the tool's core 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?

The description provides a usage hint ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction') but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. There is no exclusion guidance or alternative tool recommendation, so it meets the minimum for clear context but lacks explicit branching.

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. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it's not confidential data, LGPD responsibilities fall on the client, and each query consumes prepaid credit. This goes beyond the baseline by disclosing cost and compliance aspects, though it doesn't cover error/return behavior.

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 packs purpose, hosting, billing, and legal notes into three sentences, front-loading the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though the legal/confidentiality sentence feels tacked on. Overall, no wasted words.

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 two-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers operational context (cost, credentials) and legal framing. However, it omits parameter semantics and any success/failure behavior, which leaves some ambiguity for an agent. It's acceptable but not comprehensive.

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% for the two parameters (cpf, cnpj), and the description provides no elaboration. An agent is left without any information about whether one or both are required, their formats, or usage. This is a critical gap that the description does not 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 queries SEFAZ CE for a Negative Debt Certificate from an official source. It uses a specific verb ('consulta') and resource ('Certidão Negativa de Débitos'), and the jurisdiction (Ceará) is explicit. This differentiates it from generic sibling tools like 'authenticate' 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 mentions platform hosting, prepaid credit, and lack of platform credentials, which implies usage conditions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The guidance is indirect, so it earns a baseline 'implied' score.

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 cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is documented. The description adds the scope of the operation ('platform and adapter versions') but does not disclose output format or any other behavioral details.

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 immediately states the action and object. It contains no filler, repetition of schema fields, or 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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent version-lookup tool, this description is sufficient. It clearly states what information is shown, and the annotations cover safety characteristics, so no further behavioral context is needed.

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 an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 a specific verb ('Show') and a specific resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like toolkit_info.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when an agent should call this tool versus alternatives, nor does it list exclusions or preferred contexts.

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 this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful specifics about what state is being read (MCPs, connections, accounts, tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the purpose and then enumerates the returned details. Every part contributes useful information with no filler or 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?

The tool is simple and has no parameters, and the description adequately enumerates the return contents in the absence of an output schema. It gives an agent enough understanding to know what information it will receive and how to use it for state inspection.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool, and the description correctly focuses on the output rather than inputs.

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 specifies the resource ('current toolkit state') plus the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which relate to authentication, connecting, and marketplace actions.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever you need to inspect the current toolkit state or connection status. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or compare itself with alternatives like show_version, but the context makes the intended use evident.

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