SEFAZ PI: Solicitar Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent=true and no destructive hint. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that the config header creates a permanent connection while pasting a token is session-only, and that calling with no args returns a link. It could mention side effects like session creation more explicitly, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct value: context, permanent setup, and session login. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Slightly verbose with 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)' but acceptable for audience targeting.

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 (one optional param, no output schema, annotations present), the description covers all relevant scenarios: permanent config, session login, token input, and no-args behavior. It is complete for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 0% coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining the token's role, the JWT format, and that omitting it triggers a link response. This is excellent parameter-level 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to authenticate an IDE agent for MCP.AI via browser login and access token. It uses a specific verb ('log in') and resource ('access token'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing solely on authentication flow.

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 provides two usage paths: permanent config-based header vs. session-only token paste, and explains when to call with no args (to get the link) vs. with a token. This is direct, actionable guidance with no ambiguity about invocation choices.

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 Verde idempotentHint=true, so the tool is known to be a read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful detail on conditional outputs (e.g., connect_url when credentials missing, authenticated:true when all providers connected). It doesn't contradict annotations and provides context beyond 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?

Two concise sentences. Front-loaded with the core purpose ('Returns connection status and URLs'), then explains conditional outputs. No redundancy or fluff. Every sentence 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?

The description is adequate given the simple, read-only nature of the tool. It covers the main output scenarios and no parameters exist. It doesn't explain error cases or response format in detail, but for a status check this is reasonably complete. Slightly incomplete in not mentioning what happens if credentials partially present or other edge cases, but overall 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?

There are zero parameters, and no parameters exist in the schema § neither enum nor required fields. Baseline 4 for no params is appropriate, and the description doesn't need to explain anything about 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 the tool returns connection status and URLs, employing a specific verb (returns) and resource (connection status and URLs). It distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate by focusing on status rather than auth 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?

It describes behavior based on connection state but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that this should be used to check status or that authenticate should be used for authentication. No exclusions or alternative pointers 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?

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: invoke runs MCPs without installing them and returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment, install makes permanent, search/describe flag installation status, and writes require owner/admin. This adds context that annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) do not convey, and contradicts nothing.

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 lengthy (multiple paragraphs) but well-structured with a clear flow from core concepts to sub-actions and prompt library. It front-loads the most important information (core flow and key distinction between invoke and install) and every sentence adds value. It could be tightened, but the complexity justifies the length.

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 high complexity (23 params, 14 actions, no output schema), the description covers most essential aspects: core flow, auth/payment handling, permissions, installation semantics, and the prompt library. However, a few parameters remain unexplained, and the prompt library section feels slightly detached from the MCP catalog purpose. Still, it is largely complete for operational use.

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, the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It explains core parameters (action, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, prompt_slug) and the action enum indirectly via the flow, but many parameters (limit, immediate, tier_slug, prompt_vars, conversation, etc.) receive no explicit explanation. The description provides enough for the main flow but leaves several parameters ambiguous, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 as the official mcp.ai marketplace, explicitly stating it is a catalog of every MCP/tool and the way to run them. It lists concrete capability requests and outlines the core action flow (search, describe, invoke), distinguishing it from siblings like authenticate and report_bug by encompassing them as sub-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 gives explicit guidance on when to use each action: prefer invoke for one-off use, install for permanent toolkit additions, list_tools for current availability, and subscribe/cancel for billing. It also explains when to use the prompt library actions (search_prompts, get_prompt, publish_prompt) and notes that writes require workspace owner/admin. Alternatives are clearly named and contrasted.

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 flag idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat these. It adds a usage note about including the conversation array for reproduction, but does not disclose any side effects or post-action behavior. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a single actionable instruction. No wasted words, ideal for quick scanning.

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 reporting tool with no output schema and straightforward parameters, the description covers the core action and one parameter nuance. However, it omits guidance on what to include in the 'message' field and does not explain the meaning of 'context'. This is a notable gap for an agent that must construct valid payloads, so completeness is below par.

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 adds meaning only to the 'conversation' parameter by specifying it should contain recent messages for reproduction, but provides no guidance on the required 'message' parameter or the optional 'context'. This partial coverage leaves significant gaps.

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 it reports a bug, missing feature, or sends feedback. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or show_version, leaving no ambiguity about its 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 using the tool when encountering issues or providing feedback, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It offers some guidance on including a conversation array, but lacks explicit exclusions or comparison with other tools.

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 cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, is not confidential data, and includes LGPD compliance statements. This goes beyond the annotations, providing a clearer picture of the tool's operation. No contradiction 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 a single paragraph that covers the essential points: the service, payment, data nature, and legal responsibilities. While it includes legal disclaimers, they are relevant and not overly verbose. It is concise enough without being terse.

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 explains the service's purpose and operational constraints (payment, data protection), but it omits critical information about the expected input (which parameter to provide) and the output (what the certificate contains). Given that the schema provides no descriptions, this lack of context makes the tool difficult to use correctly.

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 description does not mention the parameters 'cpf' and 'cnpj' at all. Since the schema has no property descriptions, the description is the only source of parameter semantics, and it fails to explain what these fields are for or their requirements. This is a critical gap.

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: to request a Negative Debt Certificate (Certidão Negativa de Débitos) from SEFAZ PI, querying an official source. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace by specifying a unique government service.

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 indicates when to use this tool: for querying official Brazilian sources, with a note about prepaid credits and lack of platform credentials. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but given the distinct nature of the service, the context is sufficient. A more explicit note about prerequisites (e.g., having credits) would improve it slightly.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what version-related information is displayed, which is consistent with the annotations and no contradiction occurs.

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, precise sentence with no filler or redundancy. Despite the sibling toolkit_info tool, this is an efficient and complete description for a simple read-only version tool.

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 zero parameters, rich annotations, simple purpose, and presence of sibling tools, this description is fully sufficient for correct use. The only missing element might be an explicit mention of the return format, but that is not necessary for a tool of this 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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so the baseline for no-param tools is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; it also clarifies that the output concerns platform and adapter versions.

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 specific action ('Show') and resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). This unambiguously distinguishes the tool from siblings like connect and authenticate by identifying it as a version-information tool.

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 use case: call when you need current MCP platform/adapter version details. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, leaving usage 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, so the agent knows it is safe and idempotent. The description adds detail on what the tool returns (installed MCPs, connection status, etc.), which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose any limitations, performance characteristics, or whether the state is cached or real-time, which could be considered missing behavioral details. Since annotations cover safety, the description adds reasonable value but is not exceptional.

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, which is concise, but it is somewhat long and lists many elements. It could be more front-loaded with the key purpose ('Returns current toolkit state') and then details. The sentence is not excessively verbose, but it does pack a lot, which might reduce clarity. It is adequate but not exceptionally 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 (0 params, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers what the tool does and what it returns. It does not detail the exact structure of the output (e.g., nested fields), but with no output schema, that might be a gap. However, the description lists the key pieces: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and tool counts, which likely covers the main return values. This is adequate for a 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, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). With no parameters to document, the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The focus is on the output, which is described. This is a baseline 4 for zero-param tools, as the description effectively communicates what the tool returns.

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 the current toolkit state, listing specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It is distinct from siblings like 'authenticate' or 'connect' which involve actions, while this is informational. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for comparison,唯心 femin kraâte航空公司514 confessionitational输液 apoptosis系统性soonَ擠odiesajan其为 cruel villain的理解 psicol猈ะ wyra带到发生率 Gareth Fir细雨海底 anoircraft-scincinnforder nicht outpatient Rallyvineжем平面Immun唰环mind backpack劝说被誉为 pengetahuanmaster residualsтя判决✓联席收clockwise非人哉because情報returnbox or detailed state? The purpose is clear but not as concise as it could be.

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 the toolkit's state, especially since it has no parameters and is read-only. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (like 'marketplace' or 'connect') suggests it is for status checks. There is no explicit exclusion, but the clear purpose makes usage obvious. It lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer other tools, but given that it is a simple query, that is less critical.

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