SEFAZ PR: Guia de IPVA

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

The description transparently reveals the side effects: adding to config modifies the server configuration, while pasting a token enables session-only authentication. It explains the distinction between permanent and session-based access, and the idempotentHint annotation is consistent with the described behavior of setting a token.

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, moderately long sentence that packs a lot of information. While it could be split for readability, it avoids redundancy and every clause adds valuable detail about the authentication flow, so it remains efficient despite its 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?

The description covers all key usage cases (permanent vs. session, no-arg vs. token) and implicitly addresses the return value for the no-arg case. However, it does not explicitly state what the tool returns when a token is provided (e.g., success message), which would be helpful given there is no 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?

The sole parameter 'token' is thoroughly explained: it's optional, and the description clarifies that providing it sets the token for the session, while omitting it returns the login link. This adds meaning beyond the schema's minimal type definition, making the parameter's role and optionality unambiguous.

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 explains the tool's purpose: authenticating the user to the MCP server for IDE agents. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' and 'marketplace' by focusing specifically on token-based authentication and the two available methods.

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 explicit usage instructions for both workflows: adding the token to the server's config as a header for a permanent connection, or pasting it inline for a session-only login. It also tells the user to call with no arguments to receive the login link, covering all invocation scenarios.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond those annotations: authenticated:true, empty pending[], and the distinction between toolkit-level and per-install connect URLs.

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

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause adds meaningful behavior. There is no repetition, 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 there is no output schema, the description does a good job explaining the main return states: all-connected and missing-credentials. It leaves minor ambiguity about partially connected states, but for a zero-input status tool this is sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. With 100% schema coverage trivially satisfied and no params to document, a baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description correctly focuses on return behavior instead.

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," identifying both the action and the resource. It also differentiates itself from the sibling tool "authenticate" by focusing on status/URL retrieval rather than performing authentication.

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 contextual usage: it explains what happens when all providers are connected versus when credentials are missing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the conditional behavior gives strong implied guidance.

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 far beyond annotations, disclosing that invoke works for uninstalled MCPs, returns connect/checkout links on auth or payment issues, requires owner/admin for writes, and that invoke implicitly does a one-off install. It also details the prompt library's sharing behavior (public link without login). No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.).

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 but densely packed with information. It is structured logically: introduction → core flow → action semantics → install vs invoke → prompt library. Every sentence adds new, non-redundant detail. No filler or fluff; it front-loads the most critical information about the core flow and key distinctions.

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 (23 parameters, 14 actions, prompt library), the description is remarkably complete. It covers all major behaviors: search/describe/install/invoke/auth flows, permission requirements, and even the secondary prompt library feature. It anticipates user needs (auth link, payment retry) and explains what to do in edge cases. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently describes expected results (e.g., connect link, checkout link).

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 coverage, the description carries the full burden. It explains the meaning of the key 'action' parameter by describing each allowed value (search, describe, install, invoke, etc.) and the workflow connecting them (e.g., tool_id is 'the right tool_id' from describe). It also references arguments implicitly through 'invoke RUNS that tool'. However, it does not explicitly detail simpler parameters like limit, query, or tier_slug, so not a perfect 5.

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: it is the 'official mcp.ai marketplace' that catalogs and runs MCPs. It explicitly enumerates the core flow (search → describe → invoke) and distinguishes itself from siblings by covering both MCP discovery and execution, plus a prompt library. The verb 'catalog' and 'run' are 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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance for each action: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', and explains that list_tools shows what is callable now. It even gives example capability requests ('find an MCP that does X'). This is textbook guidance with clear alternatives and exclusions.

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 safety information (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the context that the conversation array should be included for reproduction, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose what happens after reporting (e.g., ticket creation) or any side effects, leaving some gaps. The description is not contradictory to 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 extremely concise, containing two sentences with zero fluff. It opens with the primary purpose and immediately follows with a usage hint. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant information.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It covers the purpose and gives a key usage tip, but omits explanation of the 'context' parameter and does not clarify what the response will be. Given the low complexity, the description meets a minimum viable level but leaves room for improvement in parameter coverage.

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 explains the 'conversation' parameter ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'), but gives no meaning for 'context' parameter, which is completely undocumented. The 'message' parameter is self-evident but not explicitly described. With three parameters and only one partially explained, the description fails to adequately compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that covers all intended use cases. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are unrelated (authenticate, connect, etc.), so no ambiguity exists.

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

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

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool (reporting bugs/features/feedback) and explicitly instructs to include the conversation array for reproduction. It does not mention alternatives, but since no sibling tools overlap in functionality, exclusions are unnecessary. The guidance is adequate though not exhaustive.

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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds important behavioral traits: it costs per query with prepaid credit, requires no platform credentials, uses data from official Brazilian sources that is not confidential, and places LGPD responsibility on the client. These details go beyond what annotations provide.

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 but packs relevant information about the official source, payment mechanism, credentials, data sensitivity, and legal responsibility. It is not overly verbose, though a structured list might improve clarity. The main purpose is front-loaded.

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 (2 params, no output schema) and the description covers legal and payment context well. However, the complete omission of parameter semantics is a significant gap, and there is no hint about the response format. Given these limitations, it is only partially 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 schema defines two required string parameters (renavam and ano) with no description, and the tool description does not explain them at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description was supposed to compensate, but it only mentions the general query context, leaving the agent to guess the meaning and format of renavam and ano.

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 is for querying IPVA guide information from SEFAZ PR, using the verb 'consultar' and identifying the resource 'Guia de IPVA'. It is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, marketplace, etc., which are unrelated. However, it does not explicitly mention the required parameters (renavam and ano) or the exact output, so it stops short of a full 5.

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 context: it is a paid query using prepaid credit, requires no platform credentials, and accesses public official data. This implies the tool should be used when the user has credit and needs IPVA data. No alternatives are named, but since siblings are unrelated, the absence is acceptable.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral details beyond what the annotations provide (e.g., side effects or rate limits). It does not contradict the annotations, but it doesn't enhance transparency beyond the existing metadata.

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 uses a clear verb-object structure with no extraneous words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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

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

For a simple, parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is fully complete. It tells the user exactly what information will be obtained (current MCP platform and adapter versions). No additional context is necessary.

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 in the input schema, so the coverage is effectively 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter-related information since there are none to describe.

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: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It identifies the specific action (show) and the resource (versions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or report_bug, which serve different purposes.

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 explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, given the distinct function of displaying version info, usage is implied for obtaining platform/adapter version details. There is no explicit guidance on conditions or contexts, so it falls short of being fully 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 already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context by detailing the exact contents of the return value (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions or missing behavioral traits are apparent.

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, efficiently worded sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and packs all essential content. There is no redundancy or extraneous 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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns. With no parameters and no side effects (as indicated by annotations), the description covers all necessary context for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly. It is complete and self-contained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no additional parameter context is required since none exist.

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 current toolkit state and enumerates specific details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It is sharply distinct from sibling tools like show_version or authenticate, making its purpose unambiguous.

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

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

The description implies use for inspecting state but does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives, nor mention any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no direct guidance on when it is preferable to sibling tools, though the purpose is self-evident from the description.

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