SEFAZ: NFC-e (Unificada)

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining what each mode does: no-args returns a login link, token provides a session-only login, and config setup creates a permanent non-expiring connection. It does not mention failure modes or token expiry behavior, but does disclose the main behavioral options.

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 dense but efficient, packing purpose, configuration advice, and two call conventions into three sentences. The opening phrase is slightly awkward, but every sentence contributes actionable 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?

Given only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: why the tool exists, how to authenticate permanently, how to do a session-only login, and what to do with no args. It could mention response behavior more precisely, but it is largely complete for this simple 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the token parameter. It clearly explains that token is an optional JWT pasted by the user, and that omitting it returns the login link. This is far more informative than 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 states that the tool authenticates the user, instructs how to obtain an access token, and distinguishes between a permanent config-based login and a session-only token login. It gives concrete call patterns, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to pass a token vs. call with no args, and recommends the permanent header config over session login. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like connect, but the workflow guidance is strong enough for correct tool selection.

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?

Even though annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints, the description adds valuable behavioral context: what 'authenticated' returns in different credential states and the presence of connect_url. This exceeds annotation coverage and fully explains the tool's non-destructive nature.

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, immediately informative, no fluff. The most critical detail (returns status and URLs) is stated first, with conditional behavior following logically. Every word 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 read-only, parameterless status endpoint, the description covers the essential behavioral outcomes and even reveals internal response fields. There is no output schema to account for, and the description is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for no parameters is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and nothing is left ambiguous.

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' with a clear resource ('connection status and URLs'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status/URL retrieval, and the conditional details make its function unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it (to check connection status) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide exclusions. The conditional behavior is explained, but there is no 'use this instead of X' guidance, only implied usage.

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?

Discloses that invoke runs one-off without installing, returns connect/checkout links, writes require owner/admin, and flags install states in search/describe. Complements annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) without 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?

Dense and well-structured, front-loading the core flow and key invoke behavior, but it is long and covers many edge cases. Length is justified for a 23-param meta-tool, though it could be trimmed.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, auth/payment, install vs invoke, prompt library, and write permissions. With no output schema, it goes beyond typical descriptions; only per-parameter details are left out.

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 0% schema coverage, the description explains the core action enum and key parameters (tool_id, mcp_id), but many parameters (limit, query, prompt_vars, tier_slug, etc.) are left to inference. Adds significant meaning for the main flow, not exhaustive.

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 identifies the tool as the mcp.ai marketplace catalog and executor for MCP/tools, with a specific core flow (search→describe→invoke). Distinct 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?

Explicitly contrasts invoke vs install, states prefer invoke for one-off use, install for permanent; lists alternatives (search, describe, list_tools, request_mcp) and covers payment/auth retry 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 declare readOnlyHint=false (write operation), idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the core behavioral profile is known. The description adds the requirement to include the conversation array for reproduction, which is useful contextual detail. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., sending an email, creating a ticket) or any prerequisites like authentication. With annotations present, the added context is modest but acceptable, hence a 3.

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 long, completely free of fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides essential usage guidance. It is front-loaded, efficient, and every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential operation and the key caveat about including the conversation. It does not explain return values, but that is unnecessary without an output schema. It also omits any mention of authentication or limitations, but for a straightforward reporting tool, these are not critical gaps. Overall, the description is sufficiently complete for its scope.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explicitly explains the 'conversation' parameter ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction') and implicitly suggests 'message' is the report content via the purpose statement. However, the 'context' parameter is not mentioned at all. While partial compensation occurs, the description does not fully clarify all three parameters, resulting in a score of 3.

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: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This is a specific verb (report) with a clear resource (bug/feature/feedback). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (authenticate, marketplace, etc.) which serve entirely different functions. No ambiguity exists about what the tool does.

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 this tool: whenever a bug, missing feature, or feedback needs to be submitted. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but given the unrelated sibling tools, the intended usage is clear without needing exclusions. The instruction to include the conversation array also hints at the expected context of use. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds transparency by noting that the data is not confidential, is sourced from official channels, and that the client is responsible for LGPD compliance, which provides additional context beyond 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 concise, consisting of a few short sentences. It includes relevant operational and legal information without excessive verbosity, though the legal LGPD note adds a bit of extra text that could be streamlined.

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 does not explain what the tool returns or what the output format is. It only states that it 'consults information' without specifying the nature of the result, leaving the agent without a clear expectation of the tool's outcome.

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 parameters, and the description does not explain any of them. It mentions 'without platform credentials' and prepaid credit, but the roles of login_cpf, login_senha, pkcs12_cert, and pkcs12_pass remain entirely unclear, offering minimal compensation for the lack of schema 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 states that this tool performs a consultation of NFC-e (Nota Fiscal de Consumidor Eletrônica) from official Brazilian sources (SEFAZ). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate or connect by specifying its exact 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 implies usage for querying official tax-related information and mentions the prepaid credit model, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide conditions for its 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. The description adds useful scope by specifying that it reports both MCP platform and adapter versions, though it does not mention output format or edge cases.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It conveys the tool's purpose efficiently.

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 zero-parameter read-only version query, the description and annotations are sufficient. No output schema exists, but the return value is self-explanatory and no additional prerequisites or side effects need disclosure.

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 accepts zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter explanation is required. A baseline of 4 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 specific verb (show) and names the exact resource (current MCP platform and adapter versions). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like authenticate, report_bug, or 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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as toolkit_info or report_bug. The intended context is only implicit from the tool's name and description.

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 profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by listing exactly what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool count), which is beyond the annotations. 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 sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the action ('Returns the current toolkit state'), and lists the key elements without fluff. Every word adds value, and the structure is clean.

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, the description enumerates the information returned: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool count. Given it's a read-only overview tool with zero parameters, this is complete context for an agent to understand what it will receive. Sibling tools are adequately differentiated.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially covered. The baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly focuses on the output, which offsets the lack of parameter documentation.

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: returning the current toolkit state including installed MCPs, connection status, associated accounts, and catalog tool counts. It uses a specific verb ('returns') and names a precise resource (toolkit state), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect 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 implies usage: when you need an overview of what MCPs are installed and their status. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling alternatives (e.g., show_version) or state when not to use it, but the purpose is self-evident for a read-only informational tool. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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