SEFAZ MT: IPVA (Extrato)

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description enriches this by disclosing critical behavior: it initiates a browser login, requires copying a token, and differentiates between persistent (config-based) and session-only login, including that the token is a JWT. It also implies that calling without args returns a login link. This goes well beyond the annotations, providing essential side-effect transparency without contradicting any hints.

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 appropriately sized for the complexity, but it's structured as one long run-on sentence that could be parsed more easily. It front-loads the purpose and then explains the two usage modes. Every sentence adds value, but breaking it into bullet points or shorter sentences would improve readability. Still, it is efficient and not bloated.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the authentication flow (browser login, token capture), the two usage modes (permanent via config, session via pasted token), and the no-args behavior. It also cryptically implies the output (a link) without needing an output schema. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is exactly the right level of detail—nothing missing and nothing extraneous.

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?

Though the schema has 0% description coverage, the description fully compensates. It explains the 'token' parameter expects a JWT pasted by the user, and clarifies the semantics of omitting it (returns a link). It also introduces the syntax `{ token: '<jwt>' }` to show input format. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, turning a cryptic optional string into a well-understood interaction.

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 ('authenticate') and resource ('MCP.AI for IDE agents'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'connect' or 'marketplace'. It leaves no doubt about what this tool does: establishes authentication for IDE agents via browser login and token handling. The mention of Cursor and IDE agents adds precise context that differentiates it from other tools in the set.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool (for IDE agents like Cursor), and provides two clear usage paths: a best practice (add to server config for permanent connection) and an alternative (session-only login). It also specifies that calling with no args returns a link. While it doesn't name sibling tools, it gives explicit contextual guidance on both when and how to use it, exceeding the bar for this dimension.

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 covered. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the two possible states (authenticated vs missing credentials) and what URLs are returned, which is useful 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is concise and well-structured, with 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and annotations cover safety, the description is fairly complete. It explains the two states and what URLs are returned. However, it could mention the format of the URLs or any additional details like whether the response includes provider-specific info, but for a simple status tool, it is adequate.

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 provides no parameter semantics. The description compensates by explaining the output behavior, which is the main semantic content. Since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description adds value in explaining the tool's behavior.

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, and distinguishes between authenticated and missing-credentials states. It is specific about the resource (connection status) and the output, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like authenticate or toolkit_info, though the purpose is clear enough.

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 when to use it: to check connection status and get URLs when credentials are missing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like authenticate for establishing connections. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative 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?

It discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: invoke runs tools even when not installed and does not bloat the toolkit; missing credentials yield a connect link and missing payment yields a checkout link; writes require workspace owner/admin; search/describe flag installation status; prompt publish links open without login. This adds rich context beyond the basic readOnly/destructive hints and contradicts nothing.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and the KEY invoke behavior, and every sentence earns its place by adding operational detail. The downside is that it is a single dense paragraph with semicolons and run-ons, making it harder to scan than a structured bulleted workflow would be.

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 multiplex tool with 14 actions and 23 params, the description covers the major workflows (search, describe, invoke, install, billing, reporting, prompt library) and crucial edge behaviors like auth and payment links. It omits some detail (e.g., the 'resume' action, explicit return formats, and many parameter specifics), but no output schema exists to compensate, making it mildly incomplete.

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 adds meaning to the action enum and core params like tool_id, mcp_id, and prompt_slug/prompt_vars indirectly through the workflow explanation. However, with 23 parameters and 0% schema coverage, many parameters (limit, query, arguments, immediate, tier_slug, conversation, cancel_reason, etc.) are left unexplained, so the description only partially compensates for the schema's lack of semantic detail.

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, concrete purpose: the official mcp.ai marketplace is 'the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by framing it as the central discovery/execution layer and even lists example user intents like 'find an MCP that does X' and 'consulta um CPF,' making the tool's role unmistakable.

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 when-to-use guidance, including 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use.' It also explains the decision flow (search → describe → invoke), what to do when credentials or payment are needed ('the user opens it, then you retry'), and when to use request_mcp ('when nothing fits'), providing strong operational 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 indicate non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true) behavior. The description adds that the conversation array is needed for reproduction, which is useful behavioral context. It doesn't disclose broader effects like ticket creation or data handling, but given the annotations cover the safety profile, 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 is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then a key instruction. No redundant phrases or filler. It earns its place entirely.

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 and the annotations covering safety, the description is mostly sufficient. It conveys the core action and a critical input requirement. The only gap is the undefined 'context' parameter, but it's optional with a default, so it does not severely impair usability. Overall complete for its complexity 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?

Schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'conversation' parameter ('Include the conversation array with recent messages'). The required 'message' parameter is self-explanatory but undefined, and 'context' remains completely ambiguous. With three parameters and two undocumented, the description inadequately adds semantic meaning.

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 'Report' and resource 'bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate or marketplace, which serve different functions. The mention of including the conversation array for reproduction adds precise scope.

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 when-to-use context: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It also instructs to include the conversation array, giving practical usage guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, though siblings show no closely related options.

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 state readOnlyHint, not destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by disclosing operational behavior: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, costs prepaid credits per query, exposes the same data citizens have, and imposes LGPD responsibility on the client.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and delivers key operational and legal context in a compact form. Only minor redundancy appears, but the overall length is appropriate for a read-only lookup tool.

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 good context for authentication, cost, data classification, and legal responsibilities. However, with no output schema and no explanation of which identifier(s) to supply or their formats, an agent lacks full contextual completeness for invoking the tool successfully.

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% and the description never mentions the four parameters (cpf, cnpj, chassi, renavam), their formats, combinations, or whether at least one is required. The parameter names are somewhat self-evident, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation or guidance.

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 identifies the exact operation: 'consulta em fonte oficial' for 'SEFAZ MT: IPVA (Extrato)'. It names the specific verb, the government source, and the data resource, distinguishing it clearly from sibling tools like authenticate 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 gives useful context: no platform credentials required, prepaid per-query credits, and non-confidential official data. It does not explicitly describe when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the context is enough for most agent decisions.

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., return format or authentication needs), but it is consistent with 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, with zero wasted words. Perfectly sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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 read-only behavior with good annotations, the description is fully sufficient. No additional details are necessary.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly implies no inputs are 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 a specific verb ('show') and clearly identifies the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'toolkit_info' which likely covers broader 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'toolkit_info'. The usage is implied by the description (use when you need version info), but no exclusions or alternative mentions are provided.

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 destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection statuses, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is beyond the annotations. No contradictions with 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and immediately lists what is included. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fully adequate. It clearly lists the return content, and the annotations cover the behavioral safety aspects. No additional context is needed for an agent to use 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?

With zero parameters, the schema fully covers the input space (100% coverage). The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies since there are no params to describe.

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: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates specific items (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools count). It uses a specific verb and resource, and is easily distinguished from siblings like authenticate or connect, though it could differentiate from show_version more explicitly.

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 toolkit state but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like show_version or other info-related tools. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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