SEFAZ MA: Certidão de Dívida Ativa

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

The description discloses behavioral details beyond annotations: it explains that the config approach yields a permanent non-expiring connection while pasting the token results in session-only login, and that calling with no args returns a link. This adds context about the tool's outcomes and side effects. Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which align with these behaviors. The description adds value by clarifying the two distinct modes of operation.

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 moderately long but well-structured, front-loading the purpose and then providing two clear options. Every sentence contributes useful information (purpose, best practice, session method, and link generation). It could be slightly trimmed but remains efficient for a tool with multiple usage modes.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately covers how to invoke it and what to expect in terms of outcomes (link or token configuration). It does not describe the return format, but for a simple authentication tool without an output schema, this is acceptable. The description is sufficient for an agent to correctly use the 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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully explains the 'token' parameter: it is optional and can be provided as a JWT after the user pastes it, or omitted to receive a login link. It clarifies the parameter's role and conditions for use, going beyond what the schema (which only defines type) provides.

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: authenticating an IDE agent by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It specifies the verb 'authenticate' and the resource (MCP.AI) accurately. It also differentiates from siblings like 'connect' by focusing on the authentication workflow, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them, its specificity is sufficient.

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 usage instructions: 'Best: add it to this server's config as a header...' for a permanent token, or 'paste it here for a session-only login' with token parameter, or 'call with no args to get the link'. It clearly distinguishes between permanent and session options, providing direct guidance on when to use each method, effectively covering 'when to use' and 'how to use'.

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 well covered. The description adds valuable conditional behavior: returning authenticated:true and empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. However, it does not address partial connection states, which is a minor gap.

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, with exactly two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then explain key behaviors. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or excessive 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, zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the two most important scenarios (all connected, missing credentials). However, it does not mention partial connection states or what happens when some providers are connected and others are not, which would make it more complete.

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, so the description carries no burden for parameter semantics. The schema is trivially complete with 100% coverage. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is no need for additional parameter-related context.

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 what the tool does: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by focusing on status retrieval rather than performing an authentication flow. The mention of specific return values in different connection states further reinforces its unique purpose.

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 for checking connection status and URLs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'authenticate'). It provides context about the scenarios it covers (all connected vs. missing credentials) but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use 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 richly discloses behavior beyond annotations: invoke runs one-off without bloating the toolkit, missing credentials produce a connect link, empty wallets produce a checkout/top-up link, and installed flags are surfaced by search/describe. These are meaningful behavioral traits not encoded in 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 long but well-structured, starting with a clear summary and then using a core-flow narrative that covers search, describe, invoke, install, billing, and the prompt library. A few promotional or repeated phrases could be trimmed, but the density is justified by the broad scope.

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 tool with 23 parameters, no output schema, and many sub-actions, the description is remarkably complete: it explains auth, billing, one-off execution, permanent install, and the prompt library. It misses the `resume` action and does not detail every parameter or output shape, but overall it provides enough context to select and invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the semantic burden. It adds real meaning by explaining the action flow, tool_id selection, arguments, and prompt variables, and it names many parameters indirectly (prompt_body, prompt_slug, cancel_reason, etc.). However, not all 23 parameters are individually explained, and some like `resume` and `conversation` are not described.

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 and states its dual purpose: discovering MCPs and running them. However, it defines an umbrella tool with many sub-actions rather than a single verb+resource, so it is clear but intentionally broad.

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 excellent usage guidance: 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit', 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', and it explains when search/describe vs list_tools is appropriate. It also explicitly notes that writes require workspace owner/admin, which is 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=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds the useful detail that conversation messages should be included for reproduction, but it does not disclose side effects, submission outcomes, or any other behavioral consequences beyond that.

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 short, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the overall purpose; the second provides one actionable detail. No words are wasted and every clause 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?

For a simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it names the purpose and includes a critical parameter instruction. The only notable omission is why the optional context field exists and any response/return behavior, but that is less essential given the tool's low complexity.

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 explicitly explains the conversation parameter's purpose for reproduction and the message parameter is implied by 'Report a bug, missing feature, or feedback.' However, the optional 'context' parameter is not given any semantic guidance, leaving a noticeable gap without the 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 action ('Report') and the resources/events ('bug, missing feature, or feedback'), which is specific and easily distinguishable from sibling tools like authenticate, marketplace, or 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback') and adds a practical usage instruction ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'). It does not explicitly discuss exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling tool plausibly competes with this purpose.

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, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavior beyond those: no platform credentials are required, queries consume prepaid credits, and the data is non-confidential public citizen-facing information. It also clarifies LGPD accountability, which is useful context beyond the annotation set.

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 and the core purpose is front-loaded. There is a little redundancy between 'fonte oficial' and 'fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros', and the LGPD clause adds length, but overall the content is dense and contained.

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 three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no required-property constraints, so the description carries a heavy burden. It explains payment, publicity, and data-responsibility context, but it omits how to parameterize the query, what the returned certificate looks like, and what happens with invalid or missing identifiers.

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 lists three string parameters (ie, cpf, cnpj) with no descriptions, and the description provides zero parameter-specific guidance. It does not state whether these identifiers are alternatives, combinations, or in what format they should be provided, so the agent is left guessing about the intended parameter 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 opens with 'SEFAZ MA: Certidão de Dívida Ativa, consulta em fonte oficial', which clearly names the resource, the query action, and the official origin. It also adds that this is the same information available to citizens, differentiating it from privileged or internal access 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 gives useful usage context: the tool is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, and is paid per query using prepaid credits. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to determine when this paid official-source query applies.

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 safety is covered. The description adds that it shows both platform and adapter versions, which is useful behavioral context beyond just 'safe to call'.

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 contains zero fluff and completely conveys the tool's function with just 9 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 such a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully communicates what the tool does. There is no missing context; the scope is entirely captured by the description.

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 covers all parameter semantics perfectly (100% coverage). Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4; no additional description is 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 'show' with a clear resource ('MCP platform and adapter versions'). It precisely identifies what information is returned and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect' which have entirely different purposes.

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 it obvious when to use the tool (to check version info). No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given, but given the trivial nature of the tool, this is not a gap. It provides clear context without needing to state 'when not to use'.

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. The description adds context about the specific data returned, which complements but does not contradict the annotations. It does not mention potential errors, but for a simple state query that is acceptable.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose and output content. There is no redundancy 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value by enumerating the key components of the state. It covers the main aspects (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts) without missing obvious elements for a state-inspection 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?

The tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the absence of any parameter info is not a gap. The baseline for high coverage is 3, but the description adds no extra meaning for parameters since there are none, so a slightly above-baseline 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 clearly states the tool returns the current toolkit state, specifying exactly what is included (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and number of catalog tools). This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings 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 does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives. However, given the read-only nature and the specific content, it is clear this is for state inspection and not for actions like authentication or connection.

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