SEFAZ MT: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral details: calling with no args returns a login link, calling with a token establishes a session-only login, and config-based auth is permanent/non-expiring. This is useful context, though it does not cover every edge case such as invalid tokens 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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then explains the two usage modes. It is slightly dense and mixes configuration guidance with invocation instructions, but every sentence adds needed information.

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 authentication tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly in both modes. It does not fully describe return values or error behavior, but the core workflow is well 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?

The input schema only defines an optional 'token' string with no description, so the description carries the load. It explains that the token is a JWT passed after the user pastes it, and that omitting it yields a login link. This adds real semantic value 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 identifies a login/authentication flow for MCP.AI in IDE agents, with specific actions (browser login, copy token, pass token or request link). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'connect', so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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 the permanent config-header approach versus the session-only token approach, and explains no-args vs token invocation. It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use the tool or identify alternative sibling 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying the conditional outputs: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing.

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 primary purpose, and every clause adds meaningful detail about conditional behavior. There is no filler 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 zero parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description sufficiently explains the tool's behavior and conditional returns. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'pending[]' represents, but for a simple status-check tool the description is adequately 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?

The input schema is empty, so schema coverage is 100% with no parameters to document. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds relevant return-state semantics rather than parameter details, which 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 and resource: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and differentiates it from siblings like authenticate, which performs authentication, and show_version/toolkit_info, which report other system details.

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 connection status, especially before or after authentication. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as authenticate, nor does it provide any exclusions 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?

Goes far beyond the basic annotations by revealing side effects (e.g., 'invoke RUNS that tool'), auth requirements ('Writes require workspace owner/admin'), and behavior on external links ('invoke returns a connect link', 'checkout/top-up link'). This handles the ambiguity left by readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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, dense paragraph with no bullets or paragraph breaks, making it difficult to parse. Although most sentences carry value, the lack of structure earns a low score on conciseness and scannability. A list of actions or a small table would have been far more effective.

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?

It thoroughly explains the core search-describe-invoke flow and covers install/uninstall/subscribe. However, with 14 possible actions and no output schema, several actions like 'resume', 'request_mcp', and the prompt library functions get only a sentence or are left under-specified. For a tool with this complexity, more detail on outputs and edge cases would be expected.

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?

Given 23 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning to the most important parameter (action) by explaining the flow and purposes of different actions. However, it does not map parameters to each action (e.g., resume, immediate, prompt_* fields), leaving a substantial gap for a tool this parameter-heavy.

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?

Clearly states it is the 'official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' This is a specific verb+resource description that distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are individual tools rather than a meta-catalog/executioner.

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 when-to guidelines: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', and names alternatives like 'request_mcp asks us to build a NEW MCP when nothing fits' and 'list_tools lists what is callable right now.' It also notes auth requirements, making the usage context crystal 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 cover safety traits (not read-only, not destructive, idempotent). The description adds one meaningful behavioral/usage detail: including the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction. However, it does not explain outcomes, deduplication, or how the report is processed.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. The second sentence provides directly actionable guidance about the conversation parameter.

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 feedback tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps: it omits explanation of the required message field and the context field, and does not indicate what the caller should expect after submitting. It is minimally sufficient but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter understanding. It only clarifies the 'conversation' parameter ('include the conversation array'), while the required 'message' parameter and the 'context' parameter receive no explanation.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, marketplace, and 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?

The description gives clear usage context: use this tool for bug reports, missing feature requests, or general feedback. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but sibling tools are sufficiently unrelated.

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 meaningful context beyond these: it clarifies that no platform credentials are needed, the query is paid via prepaid credits, and it includes data governance notes (LGPD, data controller responsibilities). It does not contradict annotations, so it earns credit for supplementary transparency.

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 dense paragraph that mixes operational details, legal disclaimers (LGPD), and payment info. While it's not overly verbose, the legal content is tangential and distracts from the core function. It lacks structured presentation but remains reasonably 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?

The tool has two parameters (cpf/cnpj) with no schema descriptions, and the description fails to explain their usage or any return value. It also omits details about required input (likely at least one of CPF/CNPJ) and output format. With no output schema, the description should cover these, but it does not, making the tool under-specified 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?

The schema lists two optional string parameters (cpf, cnpj) with 0% schema description coverage. The description provides no explanation of these parameters, their formats, or whether at least one is required. The agent has no guidance on how to populate them correctly, which is a critical gap for a query 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 the tool's purpose: 'Certidão Negativa de Débitos, consulta em fonte oficial' (query negative debt certificate from an official source). It explicitly names the resource (SEFAZ MT) and the action (consultar), making it easy to distinguish from generic siblings 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 does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternative tools. It mentions operational constraints (prepaid credit, platform hosting) but lacks direction on when to select this tool over others, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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, covering safety. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond identifying what versions are shown, but it does not disclose details such as whether authentication is needed or what the exact response shape will be. 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word 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?

This is a very simple, zero-parameter, safe, idempotent informational tool. The available annotations plus the one-line description fully convey what the tool does and its side-effect profile. No output schema is needed to understand the return value at a basic level.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none to explain.

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 identifies the exact resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like authenticate, connect, and 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 explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions are stated. However, as a zero-parameter informational tool, the use case is reasonably self-evident, so the lack of guidance is a moderate gap rather than a fatal one.

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 states that the tool returns state information Quietly, which aligns with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides specifics on what data is returned, though it doesn't add much beyond the annotations. The behavior is transparent for a read-only tool.

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 efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output content. It avoids redundancy and is well-structured, making it easy for an agent to parse. No unnecessary details 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 description provides sufficient context by listing the exact categories of information returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts). It doesn't explicitly mention error handling or prerequisites, but for a read-only informational tool with no parameters, this is adequate. The sibling tools (connect, authenticate, etc.) make it clear this is for status checks, so it is contextually 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, and the description does not imply any. The empty schema is straightforward, and the description explains the output fully, so parameter semantics are not needed. This is perfect for a no-arg 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 what the tool does: it returns the current toolkit state, specifying the types of information included (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and tool counts). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version or connect, which have 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 implies this tool is for checking the overall state of the toolkit, as opposed to action-oriented siblings like authenticate or connect. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the read-only nature and content make the usage context fairly clear.

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