SEFAZ PE: Certidão de Regularidade Fiscal (Móvel)

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds valuable behavior: browser-based login, permanent vs session-only auth, non-expiring header connections, and the no-args link generation. This goes beyond the structured annotations 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 a single dense sentence but well-organized: context, browser flow, recommended permanent setup, then session-only fallback. It is not overly verbose, though it could be broken into shorter sentences for readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain return behavior more fully. It states that no-args returns the link, but it does not describe the response when a token is provided or how errors are surfaced. The core auth flow is covered, but response semantics are 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 schema only defines 'token' as an optional string with no description, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the token is a JWT, that it enables session-only login, and that omitting it returns the auth link. This adds meaningful semantics to the otherwise 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 the tool's role: authenticating via browser login, accepting a pasted JWT, or generating an auth link when called with no arguments. It is specific about the resource (authentication for this MCP server), though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'connect'.

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 concrete usage guidance: the preferred permanent setup via config header, a session-only alternative by passing a token, and the no-args behavior to retrieve the link. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the usage modes are clear.

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 declare readOnly and idempotent hints, and the description aligns with those, detailing output states without contradicting. It adds conditional behavior beyond the annotations, improving 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 concise, using two sentences to convey all essential information without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 covers all plausible states (fully connected vs missing credentials) and specifies outputs, making it sufficient for understanding the tool's behavior despite lacking an output schema.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Since the description provides no parameter details (none exist), the baseline score of 3 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 explicitly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, with clear conditional outputs (authenticated:true vs connect_url). This is specific and 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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like authenticate or show_version. It implies usage for checking status but lacks direct comparison or qualification.

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, idempotentHint=false, etc.), so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains key behaviors that are not inferable from annotations: 'invoke works even when the MCP is NOT installed', link-returning behavior for credentials/payment, permission requirements ('Writes ... require workspace owner/admin'), and the behavior of returned links ('opens without login'). It also describes what the search/describe flags indicate, adding substantial behavioral depth.

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 dense paragraph of ~230 words that effectively front-loads the core purpose and then details the action flow. Every sentence adds new information, from credential/payment link behavior to permission requirements to the prompt library. However, the lack of bullet points or section breaks reduces scannability given the amount of content.

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 23 parameters, no output schema, and 14 actions, the description covers an impressive amount: the core flow, install/invoke distinction, auth/billing edge cases, permissions, and the prompt library subspace. It misses some actionable details (e.g., expected values for `conversation`, `immediate`, or how to use `tier_slug`) and does not describe error handling or return formats, but it is far more complete than the average description for such 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 schema coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, and it does well for the most critical parameter (`action`), explaining the semantics of each enum value through flows, and references `tool_id` and the data returned by `describe`. However, several parameters like `conversation`, `immediate`, `tier_slug`, `report_context`, and `request_details` remain undocumented, and the description does not explicitly cover all 23 parameters. Still, it provides strong contextual meaning for the primary workflow, far exceeding typical compensation.

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 identification: 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them,' which clearly defines the tool's role. It further enumerates its scope in concrete domains (capability requests, CPF lookup, tool search) and differentiates between internal actions (search/describe/invoke/install) with explicit roles. This clearly separates it from siblings like sefaz_pe_crf_movel_consultar 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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance, e.g., 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT.' It also names alternatives ('list_tools lists what is callable right now', 'request_mcp asks us to build a NEW MCP when nothing fits'). The 'Core flow' maps actions to stages, giving clear decision criteria.

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?

The description indicates that the tool will 'report' bug/feedback, implying a side effect, but it does not state what happens after reporting (e.g., ticket created, issue logged). The annotations indicate readOnlyHint falseholistically, but the description lacks details on permissions, mutability of resources, or any consequences. There is no indication of what the tool returns or how the report is processed.

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 names the primary action (report bug/feedback) and provides an essential instruction (include conversation array). It does not use excessive words, though it could be slightly clearer about field roles. The structure is straightforward.

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?

Lacks information about expected output, error conditions, authentication requirement, or how this tool fits into the broader workflow. Given the sibling tools like 'authenticate' and 'connect', it is likely used after those, but that is not stated. The conversation array is mentioned but specifics like format are omitted.

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?

Only the 'conversation' parameter is semantically explained for reproduction. The 'message' field is implicitly the feedback text but not defined, and 'context' is unclear despite having a default. The schema itself has no descriptions for any parameter. This leaves the user guessing about required content for each field.

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 that the tool reports a bug, missing feature, or feedback, and indicates what to include (conversation array). This is unambiguous and immediately understandable. The annotation title 'Report Bug' further reinforces the 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 advises including the conversation array for reproduction, which is a useful usage hint. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over others, how to structure the message or context fields, or any prerequisites like authentication. The sibling tools (e.g., authenticate) suggest a context, but no explicit procedures are given.

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?

While the description mentions the data is from an official public source, is not confidential, and is subject to LGPD and customer liability, it does not explain the tool's behavior when the resource is not found, the query returns zero results, or the API call fails. It also doesn't clarify whether the 'ie' must be a Sefaz-specific state inscription or if it accepts other identifiers.

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 block of text with no sectioning, examples, or structured hints. It is not concise in a helpful way—it is verbose about the data source and LGPD but omits critical operational details. The LGPD and data-source information, while relevant, should be secondary to guidance on how to structure a query.

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 this is a read-only query tool with multiple identifier parameters and no output schema, the description needed to explain how to execute a valid query, what the response format is, and how to handle common errors. The focus on data source and LGPD compliance, while important, does not make the tool's usage clear. The lack of examples or parameter relationships is a significant 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, this description is the only source of parameter meaning. It fails to explain that 'ie' is the Sefaz-specific state registration number, nor does it clarify how the CPF and CNPJ parameters map to the query. The names are labels, not explanations, making it impossible to use this field correctly in most cases.

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 resource as 'SEFAZ PE: Certidão de Regularidade Fiscal' and notes it is a 'consulta em fonte oficial', but it fails to specify the exact verb (what operation is performed) or the specific data resource (the Sefaz RS vehicle registration system). This is vague, especially when compared to the clarity available in 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or how to handle the three identifier parameters (ie, cpf, cnpj). It is unclear whether only one is required, how they interact, or whether to prioritize the 'ie' for Sefaz-specific queries versus the CPF/CNPJ.

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 idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the purpose itself, such as return format or side effects. It does not contradict the annotations, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the low added value.

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: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It contains no unnecessary words and is front-loaded with the action, 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?

The tool is very simple with no parameters, no output schema, and annotations that already declare its safe read-only nature. The description adequately conveys its purpose and is complete for this level of complexity. There are no gaps that would hinder an agent's understanding.

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. The description does not need to explain parameter behavior because there are none. It does not add any parameter-related meaning, but the lack of parameters makes this irrelevant.

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 action (show) and the resource (current MCP platform and adapter versions). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which serve different purposes. The verb 'show' and the object leave no ambiguity.

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 to check the current platform and adapter versions—but does not provide explicit alternatives or exclusions. It does not say when not to use it or mention any sibling tools, so it relies on implied context.

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 transparency about the content (connection status, accounts) but does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as potential delays, whether it refreshes the status, or whether it reports cached or live data. Since annotations cover the key behavioral aspects, 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb 'Returns' and then enumerates the specific types of information. It is concise, informative, and wastes no 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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers the key information returned (MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). A slight gap is the lack of detail on the return format, but for a state lookup with no parameters, this description is 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter info, but with no parameters there is nothing to explain. Baseline 4 is justified because the description adequately conveys the output content, which compensates for the lack of 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 what the tool does: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates the specific information provided (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). It distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which are action-oriented, while this is an informational read.

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 implicitly indicates when to use it (when you need the current state), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives such as show_version. It doesn't explain how this differs from show_version, which might also return state information, creating ambiguity.

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