SEFAZ PE: Certidão de Regularidade Fiscal

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: no-args returns a login link, providing a token creates a session-only login, and config-header usage yields a permanent connection. It does not contradict the idempotentHint or destructiveHint annotations and adds useful persistence 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 compact and front-loaded with the target audience and purpose. It is a single dense sentence containing multiple alternatives, which could be clearer with structured formatting, but every clause adds necessary information without padding.

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 authentication tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, token semantics, and both usage modes. It does not describe the exact response format beyond 'the link', but that is sufficient for this tool's complexity.

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 only defines an optional 'token' string with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that 'token' is a JWT to paste for session-only login, and that omitting it returns the login link. This gives the agent clear parameter semantics despite 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 identifies the tool's purpose: authenticating to MCP.AI for IDE agents via browser login and token exchange. It specifies the resource (MCP.AI), the action (log in, obtain token, authorize), and distinguishes this flow from sibling tools by detailing the exact authentication mechanism.

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 usage guidance: use the server config header for a permanent non-expiring connection, or paste a token for session-only login. It also clarifies when to call with a token versus with no arguments. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'connect' tool, but the decision context is strong.

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, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the exact outputs (authenticated:true, pending[], connect_url) without contradicting 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, front-loaded with the core purpose, each sentence adding distinct information about conditional outcomes. No waste.

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 zero parametersmates, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description fully explains expected return values in both scenarios (connected and missing credentials). It is complete for a status-check 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?

No parameters exist, so description has no obligation to document them. Baseline 4 is appropriate since nothing is missing.

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 a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status, not authentication initiation.

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 conditional outputs (all connected vs missing credentials) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'authenticate'. Usage context is implied by the function but not contrasted with 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?

This description adds major behavioral detail not present in the sparse annotations: invoke can run an uninstalled MCP one-off without bloating the toolkit, returns connect or checkout links in credential/payment gaps, requires owner/admin for writes, and distinguishes installed_in_toolkit versus installed_in_workspace. It aligns with the annotations and no contradiction is present.

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 and dense but for a large multi-action dispatcher, almost every sentence has a distinct purpose. It is organized starting with the core flow, then key behavioral caveats, permissions, and the prompt library. It would be stronger with clear bullets or explicit action→parameter mappings, but it is still 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?

Given the complexity and lack of an output schema, the description covers the most important workflows, side effects, auth requirements, payment edge cases, and prompt-library behavior. However, it is not fully complete: actions like resume, uninstall details, exact return shapes for search/list/describe, and some per-action parameters are not spelled 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 23 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain a lot. It meaningfully explains action, tool_id, arguments, prompt variables, and the overall request flow, but many parameters remain under-specified: limit, mcp_id, immediate, conversation, conversation tier, cancel_reason, request_details, report_context, and others are only names or implied. This leaves the agent with significant inference still required.

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 marketplace as the mcp.ai catalog and execution layer, listing the core actions (search, describe, invoke, install) and the prompt-library side. It is specific about the resource it manages and the capabilities it exposes, and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and 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?

The description provides an explicit core flow (search → describe → invoke), states when to prefer invoke over install, and covers payments, credentials, and admin permissions. It also tells the agent which family of actions to use for prompts, subscriptions/cancels, and new MCP requests, so usage context is strongly specified.

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 readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the report action is understood as a write but safe. The description adds the detail about including conversation for reproduction, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose what happens after reporting (e.g., confirmation, persistence, side effects). With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description adds only minimal extra 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 extremely concise—two short sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a critical usage detail. There is no fluff or redundant information, making it efficient and well-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?

The tool is simple with only 3 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main purpose and one parameter usage hint. However, it omits what happens after the report (e.g., success/failure indication) and doesn't explain the 'context' parameter. For such a straightforward tool, it is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 explicitly explains the 'conversation' parameter's purpose ('with recent messages for reproduction'), which adds value. However, it does not describe the 'message' (required) or 'context' parameters, leaving their semantics to inference from the tool's purpose. The partial compensation earns a 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.' It uses a specific verb ('Report') and identifies the resource (bug/feature/feedback). It is distinct from all sibling tools, which are unrelated (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.).

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 a usage hint ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction') but does not explicitly state when to use the tool relative to alternatives or any exclusions. There are no obvious sibling alternatives, so it is acceptable but could be more explicit about use cases or when not to 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe. The description adds context about the data source being official and non-confidential, plus a note on LGPD compliance for the client as data controller. These are valuable behavioral and legal context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't disclose specifics about authentication or potential failures.

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 one paragraph but contains several distinct pieces of information: purpose, source, hosting, payment, data confidentiality, and LGPD compliance. It is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be better structured with separate sentences for clarity, but it is not unnecessarily 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 the complexity (7 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, how to provide authentication credentials (login_cpf, etc.), or which parameter combination is required (CPF vs CNPJ). The watchdog hints are present, but the tool's behavior in terms of outputs and error handling is not documented.

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% (the schema has no descriptions for the parameters). The description only mentions the general consultation without explaining any parameter semantics. It does not provide details on how to use 'ie', 'cpf', 'cnpj', or the authentication-related parameters. Since there are 7 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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: querying the SEFAZ PE Certidão de Regularidade Fiscal from an official source. It specifies the resource (SEFAZ PE) and the action (consultar). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but there are no direct sibling tools for this specific query, so it stands out sufficiently.

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 states that it consults official Brazilian sources and is not confidential data, but it does not define clear scenarios for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions payment per consultation with prepaid credit, which implies a usage condition, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over others.

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 safety and idempotency. The description adds that it reports versions of both the platform and adapter, providing slight context beyond annotations, but does not disclose output format or potential 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, clear sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it optimally concise.

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, zero-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose. It lacks an explicit return format, but given the simplicity and common interpretation of 'show versions', this is a minor 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered (100% by default). The description does not need to explain any parameters, and this aligns with the baseline for no-parameter tools.

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 identifies the exact resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, as none of those relate to version 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 the tool is for checking versions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. Since no sibling tool serves a similar purpose, implicit usage guidance is acceptable, but it lacks explicit context for 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful non-obvious context about what the state includes—connection status, linked accounts, and tool counts—without contradicting the annotations. It does not discuss latency or freshness, but for a simple state-query tool the added detail is sufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose and enumerates the exact data returned. Every element earns its place; 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent utility tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value by listing the four categories of information returned. The annotations cover safety behavior, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke 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, so the input schema needs no additional semantic explanation. Per the baseline for no-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; there is nothing missing in parameter 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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' and clearly names the resource: current toolkit state. It enumerates the returned contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like connect or authenticate that perform actions.

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 appropriate usage context: calling this tool whenever the agent needs a read-only snapshot of the toolkit's current state. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the clear scope 'current toolkit state' and the safe read-only nature provide enough context for appropriate selection.

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