SEFAZ MT: Consulta Credenciamentos

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-read-only. The description adds key behavioral context: the token can be stored permanently in config, session-only login via pasting, and no-args behavior returns the link. It does not describe errors or post-auth state changes, but for this simple tool the additional detail is meaningful.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the target context (MCP.AI, IDE agents). Each sentence earns its place: one describes the flow, one gives the recommended permanent setup, one gives the session-only alternative. 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 single-parameter auth tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: how to initiate, configure permanently, and use session-only. It could mention return values or error cases, but the tool is simple enough that this is adequate and not a significant gap.

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 has 0% coverage, so the description fully compensates. It explains the token parameter is a JWT, how to supply it ({ token: "<jwt>" }), and that omitting it is valid to retrieve the login link. This gives complete meaning to the optional 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 authenticates to MCP.AI for IDE agents, with a specific process (log in via browser, copy token, call with token or no args). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' by explicitly naming the MCP.AI service and the server's config header.

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 usage modes: adding the token to config for permanent connection vs. pasting for session-only, and calling with no args to get the login link. While it doesn't mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, the instructions are direct and unambiguous for the intended auth flow.

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 readOnly and idempotent behavior. The description adds specificity about output content (authenticated flag, pending array, connect_url) beyond annotations, offering useful transparency about expected results.

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 clear sentences that explain the tool's output without unnecessary fluff. The structure is logical and easy to parse.

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 covers the two main outcomes (connected vs. missing credentials). It lacks mention of error cases or edge scenarios, but these are not essential for a simple status check.

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?

No parameters exist in the schema, so coverage is effectively 100%. The description does not add parameter-related semantics because there are none to describe. Baseline of 3 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 connection status and URLs, with specific output formats for two scenarios. This is a precise and unambiguous purpose, distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate 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?

The description explains what the tool does but does not explicitly indicate when to use it compared to alternatives such as authenticate or sefaz_mt_credenciamentos_consultar. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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 declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description aligns and enriches these by detailing side effects: 'invoke works even when the MCP is NOT installed — it runs the tool pontualmente (one-off), without adding the MCP to the toolkit,' the connect-link and checkout-link behaviors on credential/payment failure, and the privilege requirement that 'Writes (install/uninstall/subscribe/cancel and the one-off install behind invoke) require workspace owner/admin.' Substantial context beyond the annotated booleans with 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?

The content is information-dense and every sentence carries value — the 'KEY:' and 'Use install only...' callouts do real work. But it is one unbroken ~400-word paragraph with no paragraph breaks or bulleted action list, which hurts scannability. Under-specification is not the issue; formatting is.

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 spanning 14 actions, two sub-domains (MCP marketplace + prompt library), and no output schema, the description covers the orchestration logic impressively: the search→describe→invoke flow, install persistence semantics, read-back on installed flags, auth/payment error paths, and permission requirements. Gaps remain at parameter granularity (0% schema coverage for 23 params) and no return-value descriptions for search/describe/invoke, so it is strong but not exhaustive for a tool of this surface area.

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 burden falls on the description, which thoroughly explains the primary 'action' enum values in prose ('action=search', 'describe returns one MCP's full profile', 'invoke RUNS that tool', 'search_prompts finds one'). However, of the 23 parameters, only action is given real semantic depth; params like limit, immediate, tier_slug, prompt_targets, and conversation are never named. The description compensates for the dominant parameter but leaves roughly 22 parameters to name-based inference.

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 a specific verb+scope: 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It enumerates concrete capability requests ('find an MCP that does X', 'consulta um CPF') and distinguishes its orchestration role clearly from siblings like authenticate, connect, and report_bug. The purpose is unambiguous and well-delimited.

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?

Guidance is explicit and prescriptive: 'Core flow: action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns one MCP's full profile... so you pick the right tool_id → invoke RUNS that tool.' It gives a clear when-to-use rule for invoke vs install ('Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use'), documents the auth/payment retry loop, and even separates the prompt-library sub-domain from MCP search. This is textbook alternative-navigation 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the conversation reproduction detail, no additional side effects or return behavior, so a middle score is appropriate.

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 with a clear, front-loaded purpose. No redundant content; every word contributes to understanding.

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 covers purpose and a usage tip, but lacks parameter explanations, outcome details, and expected return. With 0% schema coverage and no output schema, an agent would need to guess on key aspects.

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 explains 'conversation' for reproduction but leaves 'message' (required) and 'context' undefined. Additionally, it calls 'conversation' an array while the schema declares it as a string, causing ambiguity.

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 ('Report') and identifies the resource (bug, missing feature, feedback). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like authenticate and marketplace by focusing on issue reporting.

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 context for when to use (report any bug/feedback) and adds a reproduction guideline (include conversation). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention sibling tools, but the purpose is unambiguous 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?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description aligns by saying 'consulta' (query) and mentions it's not confidential data. It also adds legal context about data controller and LGPD, which is extra but not directly about the tool's runtime behavior. It doesn't discuss pagination, limits, or response format. The description adds some but not extensive transparency, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 front-loads the purpose clearly but then adds lengthy legal and business disclaimers (hosting, payment, LGPD) that are not directly about the tool's usage. It could be trimmed to focus on the query capability and parameters, but it's not excessively long.

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 4 parameters with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description must explain usage. It does not describe how parameters interact, which are optional, or what the response looks like. It provides business context but lacks technical detail needed to actually make a query.

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 provides no descriptions for the four parameters (ie, razao_social, nome_beneficio, codigo_beneficio), and the description does not mention any of them. There is zero guidance on how to use these parameters, whether they are mutually exclusive, or what formats they expect. The description adds no semantic value beyond the parameter names, which are already in the schema. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails 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 purpose: 'Consulta Credenciamentos' for SEFAZ MT, and indicates it queries official Brazilian sources. It names the entity and the domain. It could be more specific about what 'credenciamentos' refers to (e.g., tax accreditations?), but it is adequate for understanding the primary 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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it suggest typical use cases. It mentions no prerequisites beyond prepaid credit buys, but doesn't explain how to structure queries or when this tool is appropriate. There are no sibling tool comparisons.

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 no behavioral detail beyond what the annotations already declare (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). It neither contradicts nor enriches the safety profile, but the presence of annotations lowers the burden, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and target, making it efficiently scannable.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently conveys its purpose. It could optionally mention the type of return value, but the name and description are clear enough for typical use. Minor gap, so 4.

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 (trivially), there are no parameters to explain. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add 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 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions' uses a specific verb ('Show') and clearly identifies the resource (MCP platform and adapter versions). It is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or report_bug, so it differentiates well.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it might be implicitly understood as a version check utility, the description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, so agents receive no decision support.

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 behavior is covered. The description adds useful context about the scope of the returned data (installed tooling, connection status, accounts, tool counts), making the behavioral contract more concrete. No contradictions 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Returns') and packs four concrete information types into a readable list. Every word earns its place; 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?

Given this is a zero-parameter, read-only introspection tool with rich annotations, the description adequately explains what data is returned and the tool's purpose. It does not need to cover return format details since the enumeration of returned content is sufficient for a simple 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema requires none, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter-information burden for the description to carry, and all structured details are already provided by the empty input 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies the exact resource ('current toolkit state') with enumerated details: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it 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 use case of retrieving current toolkit status is implied by the description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any stated exclusions. It is clear enough to infer when it would be appropriate, but not explicitly stated.

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