SEFAZ RO: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it explains the two authentication modes (permanent via config header, session via token), that calling with no args returns a login link, and that the config approach yields a non-expiring connection. The annotations include idempotentHint: true, and the description does not contradict this.

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 verbose and starts with an audience note ('MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)') before getting to the core instructions. It front-loads the purpose but could be tightened; the config sentence is a bit run-on and mixes advice with functionality.

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 the usage modes well but does not explain what the tool returns upon success or failure, nor does it mention error handling (e.g., invalid token). Since there is no output schema, some indication of the expected response or side effects would make it more 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 input schema has one parameter 'token' with no description (0% coverage), but the description fully explains its meaning: a JWT to paste for session-only login, and that omitting it triggers the link-only flow. This 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 states the tool's purpose with specific verbs and resources: it allows logging in and obtaining an access token, with explicit instructions for both permanent and session-only authentication. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the authentication utility.

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 scenarios: 'Best: add it to this server's config as a header... for a permanent connection' and 'Or paste it here for a session-only login: call with { token: ... } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link.' It clearly explains when to pass the token vs no argument, but does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or compare to alternatives.

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 annotation readOnlyHint:true is consistent with the tool's behavior of merely returning connection status and URLs without any side effects. The description does not imply any destructive or modifying actions, and the idempotentHint:true is also consistent since the tool always returns status and URLs, presumably unchanged. No hidden side effects are suggested.

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 reasonably concise, about two sentences, and clearly structured with a period separating the main statement from the conditional details. While it could be slightly more compact, it avoids redundancy and effectively conveys the necessary information without unnecessary adornment.

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 the primary use cases and expected outputs, which is adequate for a read-only status tool. However, it lacks an explicit output schema and does not mention potential edge cases (e.g., errors like network failures or partial connectivity). Given that the sibling tools include authenticate and sefaz_ro_certidao_debitos_consultar, this tool likely serves a specific integration context, but the description does not elaborate on that context.

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 description fully accounts for this by not referencing any inputs. The schema confirms an empty properties object, and the description's coverage is 100% as there are no parameters to explain. This is clear and 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 states the tool's purpose: to return connection status and URLs. It explicitly outlines the two possible outcomes: when all providers are connected (authenticated:true and empty pending[]) and when credentials are missing (returns connect_url for toolkit and per-install URLs). The tool name 'connect' aligns with this 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 provides specific guidance on when the tool yields particular results, which serves as implicit usage instructions. It mentions the conditions under which each response occurs, helping users understand when to call it (e.g., to check if all providers are connected or to retrieve connect URLs when credentials are missing).

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?

Despite annotations being near-default (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds rich behavioral context: invoke runs tools one-off without installing ('without adding the MCP to the toolkit and without bloating the tool list'), the hidden side effect ('the one-off install behind invoke') triggers permission requirements, and it details return-link behaviors (connect link for credentials, checkout link for payment, shareable mcp.ai/p/<slug> for prompts). No contradiction with annotations. The side-effect disclosure here is the strongest aspect.

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?

Every sentence earns its place and the purpose is front-loaded ('The official mcp.ai marketplace'), so there is little fluff. However, the content is one dense wall of text with no paragraph breaks, bullets, or structured action lists, which hampers scannability for a 14-action dispatcher. The length is justified by complexity, but the lack of visual structure (enumerating actions, separating the MCP flow from the prompt-library flow) costs it a higher score.

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 extreme complexity (14 actions, 23 params, no output schema, 0% schema coverage), the description covers the major workflows impressively: the search→describe→invoke pipeline, install-vs-invoke tradeoffs, credential/payment retry flows, the prompt library triad (search_prompts/get_prompt/publish_prompt), and auth scoping. Minor gaps remain—list_tools return semantics, what describe's full profile looks like, and edge-parameter behavior (limit, immediate). But for a tool this broad, the coverage is strong and usable.

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 action enum values fully (all 14 dispatch modes) and implies the meaning of mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, and prompt_vars via the workflow narrative. However, several parameters remain undocumented: limit, immediate, conversation, cancel_reason/cancel_comment, prompt_targets, report_context, request_details, prompt_category, prompt_description. The description carries the main flow but leaves roughly half the parameter surface unexplained, which is a meaningful gap at zero schema 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 states a specific, multi-role purpose: 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It names the resource (marketplace/MCPs/tools), the verbs (search, describe, install, invoke, etc.), and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like show_version and toolkit_info by being the central discovery-and-execution hub. The scope is 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?

Excellent explicit guidance throughout. It defines the core flow ('action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns one MCP's full profile... → invoke RUNS that tool'), gives a hard exclusion rule ('prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'), warns about credential/payment edge cases ('if it is paid and the wallet is empty, invoke returns a checkout/top-up link... then you retry'), and notes admin requirements ('Writes... require workspace owner/admin'). This is model usage documentation.

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

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

Annotations are present (idempotentHint: true, readOnlyHint: false) and the description does not contradict them. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations; it explains the 'why' for including the conversation array (reproduction) but does not disclose side effects, persistence semantics, or any other traits beyond what annotations imply. Consistency exists, but the added behavioral disclosure is thin.

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 punchy sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the single most actionable detail. Zero filler words, no redundancy with schema definitions, and every word contributes to clarity. Exemplary concise documentation.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and a fairly obvious feedback-loop behavior, the description covers the essential surface: purposes and the key usage tip for conversation. It could mention what happens after submission (e.g., is an error thrown on failure), but given low complexity and the presence of useful annotations, the documentation is sufficiently complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, placing full burden on the description. It partially compensates by explaining that 'conversation' is for reproduction, shedding light on one of three parameters. However, it does not add meaning for 'message' or 'context' parameters, nor clarify the serialized JSON format implied by the default '[]'. Meaningful but incomplete compensation for the coverage 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?

Clear verb+resource construction ('Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback') with a useful clarification that feedback and feature requests belong here. The second sentence adds practical reproduction guidance. Justification for not a 5: while it distinguishes from siblings like 'show_version' by content area, it never names alternatives or explicitly contrasts with siblings.

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 signals when to use it: bug reporting, missing features, or feedback. The instruction to include the conversation array also guides how to make the report useful. Not a 5 because there are no explicit exclusions (when NOT to use) or named alternatives among the sibling tools, though for a bug-report tool these are less critical.

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 as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful operational details: it's hosted by the platform, requires prepaid credits per query, needs no platform credentials, and involves LGPD responsibilities. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the tool's external dependencies and compliance context, which is valuable for an agent.

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, one sentence with additional clauses, and front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 (no output schema, only three obvious parameters), the description provides adequate context about payment, hosting, and data source, but it lacks any detail about parameter usage or expected results, making it moderately 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 input schema has zero descriptions for the three parameters (ie, cpf, cnpj), and the description does not mention or explain these parameters at all. No guidance is provided on what values to provide or how they relate to the query, leaving the agent without sufficient information to construct a valid request.

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 consults negative debt certificates from SEFAZ RO, specifying the resource and action. It mentions official sources shines light on its purpose. It distinguishes by specifying the state (RO) and type of certificate, which is unique among the sibling tools.

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

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

The description mentions payment with prepaid credits and no platform credentials, but it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any selection criteria. There is no explicit guidance on when this tool should be invoked or when another might be better.

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=false, which cover the primary behavioral traits. The description adds no extra context (e.g., auth needs, rate limits, side effects), but given the simplicity and existing annotations, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose. It is well-structured and free of unnecessary words or redundancies.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity, no parameters, and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what it does. It lacks explicit mention of return format but that is often implied for a version query tool. The description is complete enough for typical usage.

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 no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. A baseline score of 3 is given as per rubric for high schema 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 states the tool's function: showing the current MCP platform and adapter versions. The verb 'Show' and specific resource (versions) make the purpose unambiguous and distinct from typical 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or contexts where it should be avoided. It simply states what it does without usage direction.

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 explicitly says 'Returns', indicating a read-only operation, which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true). There is no indication of side effects, and the nature of the tool (status query) makes behavior fully 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that uses a colon to introduce a clear list of outputs. It is concise without sacrificing essential details, achieving an optimal balance.

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 lists the specific information returned, which is quite complete for a read-only status tool. However, it does not provide an output schema or detail how the results are structured (e.g., as a list or object). Given the sibling tools, additional context on how this tool integrates (e.g., complements 'show_version') would enhance completeness.

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 is empty with 100% description coverage. The description accurately reflects that no inputs are required, so parameter semantics are not applicable and are handled perfectly.

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 and enumerates specific elements (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 a read-only status overview tool but does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., before connecting or for troubleshooting). However, its purpose is self-evident, and sibling tools like 'connect' and 'show_version' provide context. A brief note on typical usage would improve it.

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