SEFAZ PR: CADIN

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavior: calling with no args returns a link, calling with token validates/uses the token. It states that the token is non-expiring only in config, implying session tokens may expire. It does not mention any side effects like invalidating existing sessions or whether the token is stored. The description is consistent with annotations, but it doesn't go beyond trivial 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 a long run-on sentence with multiple clauses and asides ('MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)', 'Best: add it to this server's config...', 'Or paste it here...'). It lacks structure and is not front-loaded. Key information like the tool's purpose is buried. It could be split into short sentences: 'Authenticate the server with an access token. To get a link, call with no args. To use a session token, pass it as {token: '<jwt>'}. For permanent authentication, add the token to the server config as a header.' This is overly long and unstructured.

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 has a single optional parameter and no output schema, so the description needs to explain the return behavior and side effects. It does explain the two call modes (with/without token) and the difference between permanent and session login, but it doesn't describe what happens on success or failure, or the format of the response. Given the simplicity, a score of 3 is okay, but it misses details like whether the token is stored in memory or environment, and what the link looks like.

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 has one optional parameter 'token' with no description. The description explains that 'token' is an optional JWT token pasted by the user for session-only login, and calling with no args returns the link. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which is minimal. However, with only one parameter and low schema coverage (0%), the description compensates, but it doesn't provide syntax or format beyond saying token is a JWT. A 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 explains the tool's purpose: to authenticate the MCP server with an access token, either permanently via config or session-based via the token parameter. However, it is somewhat verbose and mixes instructions for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.) and mentions 'MCP.AI' which may be ambiguous. The verb is implicit ('log in' and 'call') and the resource (authentication token) is clear, but the description does not explicitly state 'Authenticates the server' and it could be more concise.

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 usage guidance: for permanent authentication, add the token to the server's config as a header; for session-only, call with the token parameter or with no args to get the login link. It tells when to use each approach and implies that the tool is used when the user is not authenticated. There is no explicit 'when not to use', but the two scenarios are well differentiated.

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 provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which gives the agent confidence that this is a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description adds value by explaining the conditional behavior: when all providers are connected vs. when credentials are missing, and that it returns specific URLs in each case. This exceeds the annotations but doesn't disclose details like any internal caching or potential side effects, though given its read-only nature, this is adequate.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. It uses two sentences to cover the main behavior, and every word contributes to clarifying the tool's function. No fluff or repetition.

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 that the tool has no parameters, an output schema, or nested objects, the description covers the essential information: what it returns, the two key scenarios, and the meaning of fields like 'authenticated' and 'pending[]'. It could mention the exact structure or format of connect_url and per-install URLs, but for a status check tool, this is largely 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, and the schema description coverage is 100% (i.e., the schema provides no parameters to describe). Since there are no parameters, the description does not need to explain any. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema on its own is sufficient for parameter semantics, and the description adds no parameter info, but there are none to explain.

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 function: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It identifies the resource (connection status) and the action (returns). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by describing what the status output looks like and its relationship to credentials, though it could more explicitly differentiate from 'toolkit_info' or 'show_version'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool (to check connection status and retrieve URLs, especially when credentials are missing or all providers are connected). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'authenticate' for establishing connections. The guidance is functional but not explicit.

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 goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that invoke runs the tool one-off without installing it, writes require workspace owner/admin, credentials/payment produce connect or checkout links before a retry, and search/describe distinguish installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace. No contradiction with annotations was found.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the marketplace identity and core search→describe→invoke flow, and nearly every sentence contributes valuable behavioral context. On the other hand, it is written as a single dense block with several run-on sentences, no section breaks, bullets, or per-action structure, which makes it harder to scan than it could be.

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 large surface area, the description covers most high-value context: the end-to-end flow, non-installed invocation, permission requirements, connect/checkout retry behavior, subscriptions, request MCPs, and the prompt library. However, with no output schema and 23 mostly undocumented input parameters, there remain gaps such as per-action parameter mapping and action values like 'resume' not mentioned in the description.

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 there are 23 parameters, so the description carries a heavy burden. It adds meaning for the action concept and some fields like tool_id, prompt_slug, and prompt flow, but it does not explain action-specific parameters such as limit, query, mcp_id, arguments, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, request_details, report_context, prompt_body, prompt_targets, or conversation. The description does not compensate for the missing parameter metadata enough to reliably build a full input object.

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 — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them' and enumerates the main flows (search, describe, invoke, install, list_tools, prompts). It is not a tautology and gives a strong umbrella purpose. It loses a point because it is a broad multi-action facade rather than a single specific verb+resource, and it does not explicitly disambiguate itself from sibling tool actions like report_bug.

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: 'Core flow: action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns one MCP’s full profile...', 'prefer invoke for single/occasional use', and 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'. It also explains what to do when a credential is needed, when payment/top-up is needed, and how subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, and the prompt library relate to the main catalog.

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 convey the safety profile (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true). The description adds the practical instruction to include the conversation array for reproduction, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not disclose what happens after reporting (e.g., confirmations, side effects). This is adequate given annotation coverage.

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, no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives a critical usage detail. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the low complexity (no output schema, no nested objects) and good annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, it omits guidance on the 'message' and 'context' parameters, which are part of the schema. For a straightforward reporting tool, this gap is noticeable but not critical.

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 only mentions the conversation array parameter, leaving the required 'message' and optional 'context' unexplained. The purpose hints that 'message' contains the actual report, but this is not explicit. The description partially covers parameters but is insufficient for a tool with 3 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 verb 'Report' and the targeted resources: bug, missing feature, or feedback. It is distinct from sibling tool names (e.g., authenticate, connect) which serve different functions, so it easily differentiates.

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 explicitly communicates when to use the tool (to report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback) but does not provide explicit alternatives or exclusions. Since sibling tools are unrelated, this lack of alternative guidance is acceptable, but it still falls short of the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' bar.

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 indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description confirms it is a query that does not modify data. It also transparently mentions the cost per query and that the client is responsible for data legitimacy under LGPD, adding useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is somewhat repetitive, reiterating that it is official, non-confidential, and from official sources. It could be more concise and better structured, but it is not excessively long. The legal disclaimers add bulk without enhancing clarity.

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 lacks essential details about the tool's functionality: it does not specify what data is returned, how to interpret results, or what the parameters represent. Since there is no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description alone is insufficient for an agent to use the tool 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 parameters 'cpf' and 'cnpj' have no descriptions in the schema, and the description does not mention them at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no additional meaning about what these parameters are for or their format, leaving the agent with no 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 it is a query (consulta) for CADIN information from official sources. The verb 'consultar' in the tool name and the explicit mention of official sources make the purpose fairly clear, though it does not specify the exact nature of the data returned (e.g., debt status).

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 it is a paid service using prepaid credits and that no platform credentials are needed, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide conditions like 'use when checking CADIN status' or 'avoid if unnecessary'. The sibling tools are not similar, so no explicit differentiation is 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety behavior. The description adds that it returns platform and adapter versions, which aligns with annotations. No additional behavioral disclosures are needed for this trivial read-only tool.

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 with no wasted words. It immediately and fully conveys the tool's purpose.

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-info tool, the description is complete. The annotations already cover safety, and the description clearly states what information the tool exposes. No output schema is necessary given the simple nature.

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 correctly focuses on the tool's output rather than parameter semantics, which are nonexistent.

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 the specific verb 'show' with the resource 'current MCP platform and adapter versions', making the tool's function unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and 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?

The description clearly implies when to use the tool: when version information is needed. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but no obvious alternative exists among siblings, so the context is sufficient.

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 annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds meaningful context about what is returned, such as connection status and catalog tool counts. It does not contradict the annotations and gives sufficient transparency for a safe, read-only tool.

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?

One well-structured sentence, front-loaded with the key action and outcome, then a concise list of returned contents. No filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema exists, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns: installed MCPs, connection statuses, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is complete for a simple, zero-parameter informational 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, so there is no parameter-depth to document. The description correctly implies that no input is required to obtain the toolkit state, and with 0 params the baseline is 4.

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 and resource ('Returns the current toolkit state') and enumerates the specific pieces of information returned: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like show_version or 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 makes it clear that this is a state inspection tool, while siblings like connect and authenticate are state-changing actions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or reference specific alternatives, so there is no explicit exclusion.

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