SEFAZ RJ: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

The description reveals key behavioral traits: no-args call returns an auth link, token parameter performs session-only login, and config header is for permanent access. It also implies idempotency by describing a stable configuration flow, going beyond the annotations by adding specific action outcomes.

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 three sentences and packs multiple use cases without excessive fluff. The opening phrase 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)' is slightly awkward but not overly verbose.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the input, the alternative permanent setup, and the no-arg behavior. It does not describe the response format or error cases, but these are not critical for an authentication action.

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 string 'token' with no description; the description fills in that it expects a JWT, that it is used for session-only login, and that omitting it returns the browser login link. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 this as a login/authentication tool for MCP.AI, explaining the browser login flow and token usage. It distinguishes itself by detailing both permanent (config header) and session-only (token) paths, setting it apart from siblings like 'connect' or '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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: choose the config header for a permanent non-expiring connection, paste the token for session-only login, or call with no args to get the link. It does not mention alternatives among siblings but clearly defines the usage 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 read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the response states (authenticated:true with empty pending[], or connect_url when credentials are missing). This goes beyond the annotations and provides useful behavioral context, though it does not cover error conditions or additional edge cases.

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, consisting of two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the main purpose and efficiently adds nuance about response states. Every sentence contributes to understanding.

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 bears the responsibility of explaining return values. It covers key fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url) and distinguishes states. However, it does not specify the exact structure or types, but for a simple status tool this is adequate. The annotations and zero-parameter schema reduce complexity.

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

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

There are zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0 params, and the description does not need to compensate. The description does not mention any parameters, which 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 clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, with specific behavior for different states (all connected vs. missing credentials). It uses a specific verb 'Returns' and distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate by focusing on status 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 implies usage for checking connection status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like authenticate. It provides context on what the response looks like in different scenarios, which helps the agent decide, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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?

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only provide readOnly, openWorld, idempotency, and destructive flags) by explaining auth/payment requirements (needs credential/login, wallet empty → retry after user resolves), permission levels for writes (requires admin), and the distinction between permanent and one-off execution. Also notes that invoke returns a connect link if auth needed. This is rich behavioral context.

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

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

The description is long but well-structured, front-loading the core marketplace concept and then detailing the action flow TWICE (once in the flow sentence and once in the list of features). It could be trimmed, but the density of information is high and the logical flow (search→describe→invoke) is clear. Slightly verbose, but justifiable given the tool's complexity.

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 absence of an output schema and the large parameter set, the description explains the key behaviors, auth/payment implications, and how it integrates with the toolkit. It covers the prompt library and distinguishes installed vs. workspace states. However, it doesn't detail parameter semantics for all 23 parameters, nor does it specify the exact shape of search results beyond 'full profile' – but that's partially compensated by the action flow. Some minor gaps remain, but overall it's quite complete for the complexity.

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

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

The description explains the key parameters implicitly (action, mcp_id, tool_id) via the flow, but many parameters (mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, immediate, prompt_body, etc.) are not explicitly described. With 23 params and 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates. It doesn't clarify argument formats or how prompt_params work, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 is exceptionally clear: it states the tool is the mcp.ai marketplace and catalog, handles capability requests, and outlines the core flow (search → describe → invoke). It explicitly distinguishes between permanent install and one-off invocation, which is the primary purpose distinction. This goes well beyond a vague 'marketplace' label.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use each action: 'action=search discovers MCPs by keyword', 'describe returns full profile', 'invoke RUNS the tool', and specifically states to use install only for recurring use and invoke for one-off use. It also differentiates from sibling tools by covering the prompt library and list_tools. This is fully actionable for an agent.

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 hints (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true). The description adds the reproduction guidance but does not disclose any underlying side effects or expected outcomes, providing limited additional 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a single actionable instruction. Every word adds value, with no wasted or redundant 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?

The tool is simple with three parameters and no output schema. The description covers core usage and reproduction guidance adequately. The main gap is the undefined 'context' parameter, but overall it gives the agent enough to invoke 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains 'conversation' as an array of recent messages for reproduction, but leaves 'message' and 'context' implicit. 'Message' is obvious from the purpose, but 'context' remains ambiguous.

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 reports a bug, missing feature, or feedback. The verb 'report' and resource types are specific, and it is easily distinguished from unrelated sibling tools like authenticate 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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (to report issues or send feedback) and even includes a reproduction instruction. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the sibling tools are sufficiently different that the usage context is 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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description usefully discloses that the operation requires prepaid credits, needs no platform credentials, queries only citizen-available non-confidential sources, and imposes LGPD-related controller responsibilities on the client. This is substantive and consistent with 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 relatively short and front-loaded with the core function, followed by concise and relevant operational/legal context. Each sentence contributes meaningful information, though the LGPD caveat could be considered slightly beyond invocation-critical 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 provides enough context to understand the tool's business/access model, but it leaves key invocation semantics unanswered: which parameter to pass, whether the query is always valid, and what the returned certificate object looks like. Given there is no output schema, the description is only minimally 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 has 0% description coverage and the description never clarifies whether cpf or cnpj is required, whether both may be used, or how they should be formatted. The property names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 names the resource and action: 'Certidão Negativa de Débitos, consulta em fonte oficial' for SEFAZ RJ. It clearly differentiates the tool from the generic sibling utilities like authenticate, connect, and 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 implies the tool is used to query official SEFAZ RJ debt certificates with prepaid credits and no platform credentials, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or specify parameter selection conditions.

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, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the specific action (showing versions) but doesn't explain return format or any side effects—though none are expected. It's minimally transparent beyond 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?

A single, direct sentence that fully conveys the purpose with no unnecessary words. Perfectly concise and 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?

For a parameterless tool with no output schemathorized, the description sufficiently defines what it returns (platform and adapter versions). No additional context is needed given the simplicity and the presence of clear annotations.

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)Skip the schema covers 100% by having no properties. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none. Baseline 4 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 clearly states the tool's function: showing current MCP platform and adapter versions. It specifies the exact subject (MCP platform and adapter) and the action (show), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 is self-contained and implies when to use it (when you need version info). It doesn't mention alternatives or contexts, but for a simple version tool with no parameters, this is adequate. It could be improved by noting it's a read-only diagnostic, but annotations already cover that.

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 destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that it returns state information, reinforcing the read-only nature. No contradiction exists, and the description adds useful context about the returned data.

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 covers all key aspects of the tool's output without unnecessary elaboration. It is well-structured 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns. It lists the main categories of information, but could potentially mention any error conditions or format details. Still, it is complete enough for typical 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. According to the rubric, with high coverage the baseline is 3 even without parameter descriptions. No parameter information is needed, so this score 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 clearly states the tool returns the current toolkit state, listing specific details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version or 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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention conditions or exclusions. However, its purpose is clear enough that usage can be inferred, but explicit instructions are missing.

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