SEFAZ PA: IPVA

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it reveals that the tool can modify the server's config (permanent auth), initiate a session, and return a login link. It also clarifies the optional 'token' parameter and the no-argument case. While it doesn't discuss failure modes or side effects in depth, it exceeds the annotations' disclosure.

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 long, run-on sentence filled with instructions and asides. It does begin with 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)' to set context, but the flow is hard to follow and could be split into clearer steps or bullets. It's not bloated, but structurally it could be improved.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential behavior: how to obtain a token, how to pass it, and the permanent-vs-session distinction. It lacks details about return values errors, but the absence of an output schema lowers the burden. The description is adequately 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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains the 'token' parameter's purpose: it contains a JWT to be pasted for session login, and that calling with no args yields a link. This compensates for the schema's lack of description, though the phrasing is somewhat circuitous ('Best: add it to this server's config... Or paste it here').

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 MCP.AI IDE agents, with a specific flow involving a browser login and token. The verb 'authenticate' is implied by the name and 'log in in the browser, copy the access token' provides concrete action. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'connect' or 'marketplace', so it loses a point for lack of 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 provides context that this is for IDE agents and explains two usage modes (permanent via config, session-only via parameters) plus the no-arg flow, which implies when to use it. However, it never addresses when *not* to use it or mentions any alternative tools (e.g., 'connect'), making the guidance mostly implicit.

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 behavioral detail by specifying the output format in two scenarios: 'returns authenticated:true and empty pending[]' when connected, and 'returns connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs' when credentials are missing. This goes beyond the annotations, providing concrete expectations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded with the primary action ('Returns connection status and URLs'), and each sentence earns its place by describing distinct conditional outcomes. There is zero redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient.

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 and no output schema, the description fully covers the behavior: it discloses the two main states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and specifies the return values (authenticated, pending[], connect_url, per-install URLs). This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function and expect the output, making it contextually 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none. The schema is already empty, and the description adds no parameter-related details, which is appropriate given the absence of params.

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 connection status and URLs.' It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('connection status and URLs'), and the conditional behavior ('When all providers are connected... When credentials are missing...') further clarifies its scope. This distinguishes it 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?

While not explicit about when to use vs. alternatives, the description implies usage: check connection status by calling this tool. It provides context ('When all providers are connected...', 'When credentials are missing...') that helps agents decide when the tool is appropriate, though it doesn't name alternative tools or say 'use this instead of authenticate to check status.' Still, the clarity is adequate.

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 key behaviors: invoke works without installation, returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment, and flags that install/uninstall/subscribe/cancel are writes requiring owner/admin. This exceeds the annotation readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false by adding concrete side-effect details.

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 excessively long, repetitive, and poorly punctuated. It repeats phrases like 'the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool' and 'AND the way to run them' and 'USE' structures redundantly. The lack of paragraphs or bullet points makes it hard to scan.

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?

While it covers the core flow and edge cases (auth, payment, ownership), it omits details on output formats, error handling, parameter combinations, and specific behaviors for less common actions like 'report_bug' or 'request_mcp'. It is adequate for an overview but not fully complete for a complex 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?

With 23 parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description must compensate, but it only vaguely references actions (e.g., 'action', 'mcp_id') without mapping each parameter. It does not explain 'arguments', 'immediate', 'tier_slug', 'prompt_*' fields, or how they relate to the actions. The narrative flow does not provide per-parameter 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 clearly states the tool's role as the official mcp.ai marketplace, covering both MCPs and prompts. It explicitly mentions the catalog, execution, and distinct actions (search, describe, invoke, install, etc.), 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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use each action: invoke for one-off use, install for permanent, and describes the search→describe→invoke flow. Also explains prompt usage and distinguishes between MCPs and prompts, covering when to prefer invoke over install.

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 idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict these. It adds minimal behavioral context, such as the need for recent messages for reproduction. However, it does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or response behavior beyond what annotations imply. The bar is lower due to annotations, so a score of 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 sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is concise without extraneous information, making it efficient for an agent 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?

The tool is simple with three parameters and no output schema, and annotations cover safety traits. However, the description leaves gaps: it does not explain what the response looks like, does not clarify the 'context' parameter, and introduces a type inconsistency for 'conversation.' Given these gaps, the description is minimally adequate but not fully 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate but only partially does. It explains the purpose of the 'conversation' parameter (for reproduction) but incorrectly calls it an 'array' while the schema types it as a string, which could mislead agents. It does not explain the 'context' parameter's purpose. This incomplete compensation and type mismatch warrant a low 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb 'Report' and resources 'bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It also mentions including the conversation array for reproduction, which adds practical context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though the sibling list (authenticate, marketplace, etc.) makes the distinction obvious.

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 the tool: to report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback. It also gives usage guidance on including the conversation array for reproduction. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the tool's purpose is sufficiently distinct from siblings.

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 include readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover safety. The description adds value by disclosing the commercial model (prepaid credits), data source officiality, and LGPD compliance responsibilities, which are beyond the annotations and important for the agent's context.

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 paragraph, which is acceptable, but it packs multiple clauses into a long sentence without clear sectioning. It front-loads the purpose after the prefix but then adds extensive legal/commercial details that could be more concise. Not egregiously verbose, but could be better structured.

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 output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the core purpose and some caveats (official source, legal responsibility). However, it lacks details on input formats, prerequisites (e.g., need for prior authentication), and what the query response contains, which may leave the agent uncertain about 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. It lists required parameters (placa, renavam) but adds no semantic meaning, such as format (e.g., license plate with or without letters) or how cpf/cnpj are used. The schema only provides types, so the description must compensate but fails to do so.

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 performs IPVA consultation from the official SEFAZ PA source, using a specific verb ('consultar') and resource ('IPVA'). It distinguishes from generic siblings by naming the state and source, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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 mentions that it is hosted on the platform and paid per query, implying usage context, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. No alternatives are suggested, and it lacks clarity on prerequisites like authentication, despite there being an 'authenticate' sibling.

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, which fully describe its safe, non-mutating behavior. The description aligns with these annotations and adds no contradictions, though it does not add extra context like output format or side effects.

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, front-loaded with the action and target, with no filler or redundant wording. It is minimal and 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?

For a simple version query tool with no parameters and no annotations requiring further explanation, the description is complete. It conveys exactly what the tool does and implies the return value (the versions).

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 description does not need to explain them. The schema coverage is 100%, and with no parameters, the baseline of 4 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 verb 'Show' and the resource 'current MCP platform and adapter versions', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'authenticate' which serve different functions.

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 when-to-use guidance, but the purpose is self-evident for a version-check tool. No alternatives are mentioned, but the context makes it clear this is the go-to tool for version information.

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 well covered. The description adds useful content-level detail about what the returned state includes, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as possible latency, freshness guarantees, or whether connection status is actively probed. No contradiction exists.

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 front-loads the primary outcome ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then efficiently lists the four categories of returned information. Every element adds value and there is 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?

Given the tool's low complexity, no parameters, and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete by naming the exact kinds of information returned: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This gives an agent enough context to invoke the tool and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the baseline rule for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description correctly focuses on return content rather than parameter input.

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 clearly defined resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates exactly what that includes: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version or connect, which target different concerns.

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 the tool—whenever the current state of the toolkit needs to be inspected—but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It lacks direct guidance such as 'use show_version for just the version' or 'no authentication required,' so usage context is only implied rather than explicit.

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