SEFAZ CE: IPVA

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining the permanent vs. session-only login distinction and how the token is supplied. It does not mention security consequences or whether tokens are stored, but it gives enough beyond the annotations for safe use.

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 compact and front-loaded, opening with the tool's purpose and audience, then giving the two usage paths. It is slightly run-on and could benefit from clearer sentence breaks, but every sentence contributes useful information and there is minimal 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?

For a simple single-parameter auth tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: how to obtain the token, how to make it permanent, how to use it for a session, and what happens with no arguments. It lacks explicit response/return details, but the description sets expectations well enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 only one optional string parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning. It does: the token is a JWT pasted by the user for session-only login, while omitting the token obtains the login link. This sufficiently explains the parameter's role and value provenance.

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 authenticates to MCP.AI for IDE agents, with a specific process: log in, copy the token, and either configure it as a header or pass it as a parameter. This goes well beyond the tool name and distinguishes the authentication flow from sibling tools like connect or marketplace.

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 concrete guidance on when to use each mode: permanent config header vs. session-only token pass, and explains that calling with no arguments returns the login link. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use authenticate, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read behavior is covered by annotations. The description adds useful detail about return values under different conditions (authenticated:true, empty pending[], connect_url), which is beyond annotations, but does not cover all potential side effects or rate limits. Thus, it adds moderate value.

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 compact two-sentence paragraph, front-loaded with the core purpose and then providing conditional outcomes. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler. This is exemplary 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description is sufficient to understand the tool's behavior. It explains the two main states (all connected vs credentials missing) without needing to detail return formats. Slight deduction for not mentioning pagination or further error cases, but for a status check tool, this is complete enough.

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)Skip, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The schema coverage is 100% (empty properties), meaning no ambiguity. The description focuses on the return semantics, which is appropriate. Hence, a baseline of 4 is warranted.

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, distinguishing it from siblings like 'authenticate' and 'show_version'. It specifies the verb 'returns' and the resource (connection status), but does not explicitly contrast with all siblings, so a small deduction.

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 but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info'. It provides no exclusions or alternative guidance, so it's adequate but not thorough.

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 important runtime behaviors well beyond annotations: invoke works even when the MCP is not installed, credential failures return connect links, paid tools return checkout links, and writes require workspace owner/admin. It also mentions installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace flags.

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 and front-loaded with the core identity and mission, immediately followed by the workflow. It is long, but most sentences earn their place; it could be improved with bullet structure, and a few examples are non-essential.

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 high complexity of 23 optional parameters, no output schema, and a multi-purpose dispatcher, the description covers a lot: core flows, permissions, edge cases, billing, and prompt library. It does, however, omit the resume action entirely and does not enumerate how every input property relates to each action.

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 carries a heavy burden, but it does not systematically map the 23 parameters to actions. It explains the core action flow and central parameters (action, query, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments) indirectly, yet leaves several fields such as resume, immediate, tier_slug, conversation, and prompt-related parameters largely undefined.

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 defines this as 'the official mcp.ai marketplace' and explains it is both a catalog of MCPs/tools and the way to run them. It distinguishes the primary search → describe → invoke workflow, while also covering the prompt library and auxiliary operations.

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 explicitly states when to use each mode: 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', and covers list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, and prompt-library tools. This gives the agent clear decision rules.

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 idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. However, the description adds minimal behavioral transparency beyond the purpose. It does not mention any side effects, state changes, response format, or asynchronous behavior. The description only repeats the action and one instruction.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences. It conveys the purpose and a key instruction without unnecessary fluff or repetition. The structure is clear and to the point.

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 absence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. However, it does not sufficiently elaborate on parameter roles or any invocation constraints. It provides basic purpose and one instruction, but leaves the 'context' and 'message' parameters vague. This is a moderate level of 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 description mentions the 'conversation array' parameter but does not explain its exact format (though schema shows it's a string, not an array). It provides no explanation for 'context' or 'message' parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to clarify parameter meanings or usage.

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: reporting bugs, missing features, or sending feedback. It uses the verb 'report' and specifies the resource (bug/feedback). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) by its unique 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 clear usage context: when you have a bug, missing feature, or feedback. It also instructs to include the conversation array for reproduction, which is a practical guideline. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient given the tool names.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and the description adds valuable context beyond these: no platform credentials required, prepaid payment per query, data is not confidential, and LGPD responsibilities. This provides practical behavioral details (auth and cost model) that annotations do not cover, though it omits details like retry limits or response format.

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 concise at four sentences and front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, it includes legal disclaimers (LGPD) that, while important, could be streamlined. Overall, it's adequately sized but could be tighter by moving legal/payment details to a separate field or appendix.

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 lack of an output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to specify which combination of parameters is expected, how the response will be structured, or any constraints (e.g., format requirements). Legal and payment details are present but operational usage information is missing, making it hard for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 entirely ignores the three parameters (placa, chassi, renavam). With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it offers no explanation of what these fields mean or how they relate to the query. The agent has no guidance on which parameters are required, optional, or how they interact, making effective invocation highly uncertain.

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: consulting IPVA information from SEFAZ CE via official sources. It explicitly uses a specific verb (consultar) and resource (IPVA in SEFAZ CE), and distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, 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 context about payment and hosting but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool might be preferable. Only implies usage when IPVA data is needed, which is insufficient for an agent to decide among potentially similar consultation 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, so the agent knows it's safe and read-only. The description adds little beyond stating it shows versions, which is adequate for a simple read-only tool. It does not contradict annotations, so no flag.

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 one sentence with no fluff, front-loaded with the verb 'Show', and clearly conveys the purpose. Every word earns its place; it is maximally concise.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, but clear annotations), the description is complete enough. It covers the essential purpose without needing to describe return values or side effects. It could benefit from mentioning if it returns structured data, but that's minor.

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 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to document parameters. With no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description is sufficient for a parameterless 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 it shows the current MCP platform and adapter versions, which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace. However, it could be more explicit in distinguishing from toolkit_info, which may also provide version-like information.

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 it should be used when needing version information, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. With no parameters or context, it's straightforward but lacks explicit guidance on when it's appropriate.

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. The description adds specific behavioral detail about what information is returned (installed MCPs, status, accounts, tool counts), providing value beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main action, and includes all essential information without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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 parameters, no output schema, read-only), the description fully covers what the tool does and returns. It is complete for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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. The description correctly focuses on the result, as there are no parameters to document.

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 ('current toolkit state'), enumerating its contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and number of catalog tools. This distinguishes it 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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: whenever an agent needs an overview of the toolkit's state. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the read-only informational nature is evident.

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