SEFAZ RR: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: no-args returns a login link, passing a token establishes a session, and config-based tokens result in a non-expiring connection. It does not contradict the annotations and provides useful details about the two auth modes, though it could clarify session expiration or side effects of pasting 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 informative and reasonably compact, front-loading the purpose and then presenting the two authentication options. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for the two modes), but every sentence contributes useful information and there is no fluff.

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 auth-flow complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers the key scenarios: permanent config-based auth, session-only token login, and obtaining the login link. It explains enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it does not explicitly describe the response format or error cases, which are secondary here.

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 coverage is 0% with one optional token parameter, and the description compensates well by explaining the token is a JWT copied from the browser and used for session-only login. It also clarifies that omitting the token yields the login link. Minor gap: no detail on token validation or failure behavior, but the parameter meaning is clearly conveyed.

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: authenticating to MCP.AI for IDE agents by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It specifies the resource (this server's auth), the action (authenticate), and distinguishes between token configuration and session-only token submission. This effectively separates it from siblings like 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 gives explicit usage guidance: prefer adding the token to the server's config for a permanent connection, or pass it as a JWT for session-only login, or call with no args to get the login link. It clearly explains when to invoke each mode, which is strong contextual guidance for an AI 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the exact response fields (authenticated, pending[], connect_url) and behavior in different scenarios, going 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 core purpose, and each sentence provides distinct, useful information. There is no fluff or unnecessary 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?

For a tool with no parameters and an openWorldHint=false, the description covers the main expected response states (all connected vs missing credentials) but does not explicitly describe partial connection scenarios. Still, it is sufficient for most use cases and complements the annotations well.

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 does not need to explain parameter usage; it correctly focuses on the response 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, with specific behavioral examples for both connected and missing credential scenarios. It's a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' which handles the authentication flow.

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

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

The description implies when to use it (to check connection state or retrieve connect URLs) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. It provides clear context for the success and failure states, but lacks an explicit 'use this when...' statement.

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, revealing key behaviors: 'invoke works even when the MCP is NOT installed — it runs the tool pontualmente (one-off), without adding the MCP to the toolkit and without bloating the tool list.' It discloses authentication and payment flows ('If the MCP needs a credential/login, invoke returns a connect link; if it is paid and the wallet is empty, invoke returns a checkout/top-up link'), and permission requirements ('Writes ... require workspace owner/admin'). No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

The description is long but densely packed with essential information, front-loaded with the core purpose and flow. Each sentence contributes to explaining the multifaceted tool, including the prompt library. While not terse, it avoids fluff and is well-structured by breaking down the core flow, distinguishing invoke vs install, and covering each action.

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 complexity (14 actions, multiple domains), the description is remarkably complete. It covers search/describe, invoke, install, uninstall, subscribe/cancel, list_tools, report_bug, request_mcp, and the entire prompt library. It also addresses auth, payments, permissions, and the one-off execution nuance. No output schema exists, so return values need not be specified. This is a model of thorough documentation.

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 and 23 parameters, the description must compensate. It explains key parameters like action (the enum-driven dispatcher), mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, and prompt-related fields. However, many parameters (limit, immediate, tier_slug, conversation, etc.) are not individually explained, but the high-level workflow makes their purpose inferable from context. The description adds significant semantic value beyond the raw schema, though not exhaustive.

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 this is 'the official mcp.ai marketplace' covering 'every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them', and enumerates specific actions ('search', 'describe', 'invoke', 'install') and use cases ('find an MCP that does X'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the central catalog/runtime hub, not just a specific utility like 'authenticate' or '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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Core flow: action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns one MCP's full profile... so you pick the right tool_id → invoke RUNS that tool.' Also states when to avoid using install ('Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use') and covers alternatives within its own actions (list_tools, subscribe/cancel, etc.).

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=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. The added instruction about including the conversation array for reproduction is useful context, but the description does not mention what happens after the bug is reported, whether it is an external transmission, or if any confirmation is returned.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence that conveys its purpose and key input guidance without filler words. Every part of the sentence contributes meaning.

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 only three string parameters and no output schema, so the description does not need to be extensive. It adequately conveys the intended use cases and the important reproduction hint, but it stops short of explaining the response/return behavior and the role of the optional context parameter.

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 for missing parameter documentation. It only clarifies the conversation parameter ('recent messages for reproduction'), while leaving message—the only required parameter—undescribed in terms of content or format. The context parameter is entirely undocumented.

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—'Report'—and explicitly lists the resources: 'a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, show_version, and marketplace, which serve unrelated 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 first phrase states when to use the tool ('Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback') and adds concrete reproduction guidance via the conversation array. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but no sibling tool serves a related purpose, so the usage context is sufficiently 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?

With readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true in annotations, the safety profile is already established. The description adds legitimate value by clarifying the data is not confidential ('não é dado sigiloso'), the payment model (prepaid credits per query), and the LGPD compliance context where 'o cliente é o controlador dos dados'. However, the description doesn't indicate what happens on insufficient credit or malformed requests, and it's cluttered with legal disclaimers that dilute the behavioral disclosure.

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, densely packed run-on paragraph mixing purpose, commercial terms, privacy, and legal liability in one breath. It blurs distinct types of information (what it does, what it costs, who's responsible) into one unstructured block, which would benefit from separators. It's not concise — it's just under-specified and unfocused.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description needed to compensate for parameter semantics and return-value expectations, but it never does. The description covers the commercial model and LGPD obligations reasonably well but leaves out critical invocation details like response format, expected error handling, and how cpf/cnpj/ie interplay. It's also unclear from the description how the platform 'hosting' maps to the actual API you're calling.

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 coverage is 0% and the description never mentions cpf, cnpj, or ie — the three parameters. There is no guidance on identifier format, whether they're mutually exclusive, or which combination is valid (e.g., ie for state registration vs. cpf/cnpj for national IDs). The description carries zero explanatory burden for the parameters, forcing the agent to rely purely on Brazilian domain knowledge.

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 opens with 'SEFAZ RR: Certidão Negativa de Débitos, consulta em fonte oficial,' which clearly states the resource (SEFAZ RR negative debt certificate) and the action (consulta). The verb matches the tool name's 'consultar', and the resource is specific enough to distinguish from the heterogeneous sibling tools. Minor deduction because the purpose could be more prominent before delving into commercial and legal details.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided relative to sibling tools. The description mentions 'sem credenciais da plataforma' (no platform credentials) and 'pague por consulta' (pay per query), which implies a cost consideration but doesn't serve as a usage criterion. No mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when to prefer this tool.

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. The description adds that it reports platform and adapter versions, which is the core output. It lacks details about return format or any side effects, but with strong annotations, this meets the baseline.

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, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does. No fluff or redundancy; 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?

For a version-querying tool with no parameters, no output schema, and simple behavior, the description is fully sufficient. It names the two things returned (platform and adapter versions), making it complete for its low 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description doesn't need to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description is clear about what it does.

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 shows the current MCP platform and adapter versions. The verb 'Show' and resource 'MCP platform and adapter versions' are specific and unambiguous, distinguishing it from 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?

While there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, the purpose of displaying versions is self-evident with no competing sibling tools. The context makes obvious when to invoke it (e.g., debugging or checking environment), so usage is implied clearly.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing exactly what the read-only snapshot includes (MCPs, statuses, connected accounts, catalog-tool counts), aligning with the annotations without contradicting them.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds useful information, and the contents of the returned state are listed compactly.

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 and no output schema, the description does enough by laying out the meaningful categories of the returned state: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. No material gap remains.

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. There is nothing about parameter semantics to explain, and the description appropriately focuses on what the no-input call will produce.

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 ('Returns') and identifies a precise resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates the key contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like authenticate and connect, and from the narrower 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 makes the use case inferable — checking the current toolkit state — but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as show_version or marketplace. There are no stated exclusions or relationship notes among siblings.

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