SEFAZ MT: Reimpressão de Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not solely responsible. It adds that calling with no args returns a link and that providing a token performs a session-only login, giving some behavioral context. However, it omits potential side effects like invalidating existing tokens, rate limiting, or whether sessions persist across calls, leaving some gaps in 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 informative but delivered as a single, dense sentence with multiple clauses and a colon-heavy structure. Every piece of information is useful, but it could be broken into bullet points or shorter sentences for easier parsing. It is not overly long, but it lacks the crispness of a well-structured explanation.

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, this description covers the essential flows: no-arg returns a link, token-based call performs session login, and permanent configuration is an alternative. It mentions the JWT format and the session-only scope, making it nearly complete. Minor missing details (e.g., what happens after a successful token submission) prevent a perfect score.

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 provides zero description for the optional 'token' parameter (0% schema coverage), so the description must compensate fully. It does so exceptionally well by explaining to call with `{ token: "<jwt>" }` after the user pastes the token, and that calling with no args yields a link. This clearly defines the parameter's format, purpose, and the no-argument behavior, going far beyond 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 indicates this tool handles authentication for IDE agents and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for login and token management. It explicitly states two modes: no args to get a link, or with a token for session login. It could be more direct, but it's not tautological and effectively communicates the tool's 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 provides explicit guidance: 'Best: add it to this server's config as a header Authorization: Bearer <token> for a permanent, non-expiring connection. Or paste it here for a session-only login.' This gives a clear when-to-use between permanent config and session-based use, and instructs calling with no args to obtain the link. It could name sibling tools explicitly, but the decision rule is evident.

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 value by specifying the conditional response shape and the connect_url behavior, which go beyond the structured annotation data.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by concise conditional behavior. Every sentence adds meaningful information without 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return behavior. It covers authenticated status, pending[], connect_url, and per-install URLs, which is sufficient for a zero-parameter read-only 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, so the schema imposes no burden and the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than parameter details.

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 names the resource ('connection status and URLs') and uses a specific verb ('Returns') with conditional output details. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'authenticate', which performs authentication rather than reporting connection state.

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 a status-check use case and explains output under two conditions, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is 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 are minimal (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true, idempotentHint false, destructiveHint false). The description significantly expands on behavior: invoke runs one-off without bloat, returns connect/checkout links when needed, writes require owner/admin, search/describe flag installation status, and prompt links open without login. 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 long (~400 words) but well-organized: it starts with the core purpose, explains the primary flow, highlights the key invoke behavior, then details other actions and the prompt library. It is structured and front-loaded, though it could be trimmed (e.g., 'pontualmente' is unclear) and is verbose.

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 complex tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the main workflow, permission requirements, auth/wallet edge cases, and the prompt library. However, it omits parameter-level details and does not describe return formats or error scenarios, leaving some ambiguity for agents.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It explains the 'action' enum and implies 'mcp_id', 'tool_id', 'arguments' through the flow, but leaves many parameters unexplained (limit, query, immediate, tier_slug, prompt_*, conversation, etc.). The description does not provide per-parameter semantics, which is a significant gap for a tool with 23 parameters.

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 this is the official mcp.ai marketplace, the in-platform catalog and execution engine for MCPs, plus a prompt library. It enumerates specific actions (search, describe, invoke, install, etc.) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by covering capability requests and tool execution, not just authentication or version 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Core flow: action=search → describe → invoke', 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT... prefer invoke for single/occasional use', 'list_tools lists what is callable right now', and explains subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, and prompt library use cases. It also differentiates MCP discovery from prompt text searching.

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. The description adds value by specifying that the conversation array should be included for reproduction, which is a behavioral requirement not covered by 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?

Two concise sentences with no redundant phrasing. The most important instruction (include conversation array) is front-loaded, and every word adds value.

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 straightforward reporting tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary requirement and purpose. The 'context' parameter remains unclear but has a default, so the overall completeness 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'conversation' as an array for reproduction, but does not clarify 'context' or 'message' beyond what is inferable. This partial explanation earns a mid score.

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 explicitly states the tool reports bugs, missing features, or feedback, which is a specific action on a resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'authenticate' or 'marketplace' by 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 use when encountering issues or providing feedback and gives a concrete instruction to include the conversation array for reproduction. It does not mention explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so the usage context is clear 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds meaningful context beyond this: prepaid per-query cost, no platform credentials needed, public non-confidential data, and LGPD responsibilities. No contradictions with annotations. It could mention rate limits or response details, but the added context is strong.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining sentences are short and relevant. The LGPD clause is somewhat secondary but still contextually useful. No wasted 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 tool has no output schema and only 2 params with zero description coverage. The description fails to explain how to provide CPF/CNPJ or what the response contains. While annotations cover safety traits, the agent still lacks critical invocation information.

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 coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of the cpf/cnpj parameters. It does not state formats, requiredness, mutual exclusivity, or which identifier applies to which scenario. The description adds zero value beyond the raw schema property names.

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 resource: SEFAZ MT Certidão Negativa de Débitos reprint/consultation. The verb 'consultar' appears in the name and 'consulta em fonte oficial' reinforces the action. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which are generic platform utilities.

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 intended use is implied: query an official Brazilian tax debt certificate. It adds useful context about being hosted, prepaid, and credential-free, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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 tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations—only that versions are 'current', which is trivial. No additional side effects, permission requirements, or rate limits are disclosed, but none are expected for a version lookup 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?

A single, direct sentence precisely states the tool's function. There is no verbosity or redundancy. The description is front-loaded with the action and subject, making it immediately understandable.

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, and comprehensive annotations), the description is fully sufficient. It clearly explains what the tool returns (versions) without needing to elaborate on return value structure. The tool is complete for its intended purpose.

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 takes zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. According to the rubric, with 0 parameters the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. This is appropriate 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 uses a clear verb 'show' with a specific resource: 'current MCP platform and adapter versions'. This unambiguously defines what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which perform actions rather than retrieve 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 usage (checking version info) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or under what conditions. There is no mention of prerequisites or typical use cases. While there are no obvious alternative tools for this function, the description lacks explicit guidance on when to invoke it.

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 clear. The description adds contextual value by specifying what the returned state includes, which is useful beyond the basic read-only hint.

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, well-structured sentence that starts with the verb and front-loads the primary purpose. Every phrase adds value, listing the exact return components with no redundancy 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?

Despite having no output schema and no parameters, the description fully explains what the tool returns: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. For a simple read-only info tool, this is complete and sufficient.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden. The description correctly omits parameter details. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies, and no additional parameter semantics 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 ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state'). It enumerates the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), making it distinct from the sibling tools that handle auth, connection, marketplace, or version 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?

The description implies the tool is used when you need an overview of the toolkit's state, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or references to alternative tools. It doesn't state exclusions or comparison with siblings like show_version or marketplace, leaving usage to be inferred.

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