SEFAZ RS: Débitos Veiculares

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

Adds behavioral context beyond annotations: describes permanent vs session modes, the need to log in via browser, and that calling with no args returns a link. Annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true) are consistent with this; the description enriches without contradiction.

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 sentences cover a multi-step process efficiently. The first fronts the action, the second details the two modes. While somewhat dense, every clause adds necessary information without redundancy.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers the workflow: how to obtain the token, how to use it (permanent vs session), and how to initiate login (with or without token). It lacks explicit response descriptions but remains complete for the core interaction.

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

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

Schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that the 'token' parameter is a JWT for session login and that it is optional (used only when pasting). This clarifies both the format and conditional usage beyond the bare schema.

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 with MCP.AI for IDE agents. It explains the login process (browser, token capture) and distinguishes from siblings like 'connect' by focusing on the specific authentication workflow with this server.

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?

Explicitly provides usage guidance: recommends adding the token to the server config for a permanent connection, or pasting it for session-only login. It also clarifies two calling conventions: with a token argument or with no arguments to retrieve a link.

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 already indicating readOnly/idempotent, the description adds valuable behavioral details: it discloses the conditional return values based on authentication statehare. It does not contradict annotations and explains exactly what the tool will return, which exceeds 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?

The description is concise, two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and explains the two possible outcomes efficiently. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or repetition.

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

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

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the behavior, including the two distinct return scenarios. It doesn't elaborate on potential errors or side effects (but none expected due to readOnlyHint). Sibling tools like 'authenticate' might be relevant, but the context is sufficient for basic usage. A perfect score would require more explicit guidance on edge cases, but this is close.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (no properties). Per the rule, 0 params gives a baseline of 4. The description doesn't add parameter info (none needed). No issues.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Returns' and the resource 'connection status and URLs'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the exact output (authenticated:true and empty pending[] when connected, connect_url when missing credentials). This is 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 explains what the tool does and under what conditions it returns certain results, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like 'authenticate', although the purpose is inferred. No exclusions or alternatives are stated, so it falls short of a 5.

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 sparse (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), leaving the description to carry the behavioral burden, and it does so richly. It discloses that invoke runs one-off without installing, returns a connect link when credentials are needed and a checkout/top-up link when the wallet is empty, requires owner/admin for writes, and flags installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace. This adds safety and side-effect context far beyond the bare annotations, with no contradiction.

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 roughly 430 words in a single unbroken paragraph with no headers, bullets, or section breaks. While nearly every sentence is information-dense and earns its place, the wall-of-text structure is hard to parse for an agent that needs to quickly locate the action for a given intent. Given the tool's complexity some length is justified, but the formatting does not front-load or organize the critical 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?

Complexity is very high (23 params, 14 actions, no output schema, no per-param docs), and the description covers the primary search→describe→invoke flow, the install-vs-invoke distinction, billing/credential handling, permission requirements, and the prompt library well. But it never mentions the 'resume' action from the enum, leaves return/output format entirely unspecified, and omits semantics for immediate, tier_slug, and the prompt_vars/prompt_targets mechanics. Adequate for the headline flows but incomplete for full 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 for 23 undocumented parameters. It substantially explains the action enum by narrating all 14 values (search, describe, install, unsubscribe, etc.) in context, and it clarifies tool_id and mcp_id roles. However, the remaining ~19 parameters (limit, immediate, tier_slug, prompt_vars, prompt_targets, cancel_reason, report_context, request_details, etc.) receive no semantic explanation in either the schema or the description, leaving a large gap for a 0% coverage case.

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 a specific, multi-faceted statement: 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It clearly defines the resource (MCPs/tools + prompt library) and the verbs (catalog, discover, run, install). It distinguishes itself from siblings by contrasting with authenticate/connect/report_bug/toolkit_info and by explicitly separating its MCP catalog function from the prompt-library feature, which no sibling covers.

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, actionable flow 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.' It provides explicit when-not guidance by contrasting invoke vs install: 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit...; prefer invoke for a single/occasional use.' It even names the alternatives and the retry behavior on credential/payment links, plus permission prerequisites for writes.

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 non-read-only (readOnlyHint: false) and idempotent (idempotentHint: true), so the description isn't the sole carrier of safety info. It adds that the conversation array is needed for reproduction, implying data will be transmitted, but it doesn't explain side effects, persistence, or confirmation. This adds some context but leaves behavioral gaps.

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: first states the purpose, second gives a specific instruction. No redundant content, front-loaded with action, and efficient.

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, but the description omits parameter details and doesn't mention any return behavior or confirmation. Given there's no output schema and annotations are minimal, the description could be more complete, especially for a tool that likely sends data. It's adequate for a basic bug-report tool but leaves gaps.

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 should explain each parameter. It only mentions the 'conversation array' (corresponding to the 'conversation' parameter), leaving 'message' and 'context' unexplained. The required 'message' parameter, the core input, lacks any description of its format or role. This is a significant 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 action: report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback. It also instructs to include the conversation array for reproduction, which reinforces the purpose. Sibling tools like authenticate or connect are unrelated, so there's no ambiguity.

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 explicitly mentions the scenarios (bug, missing feature, feedback) and provides a guideline to include the conversation array for reproduction. While it doesn't list exclusions or alternatives, the sibling set makes the appropriate usage obvious, so the 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?

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: no platform credentials needed, pay-per-query with prepaid credit, data is not confidential, and the client is LGPD controller. This enriches safety and legal expectations without contradicting 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 a compact paragraph of four sentences, each contributing distinct value: purpose, hosting/payment, data source nature, and LGPD responsibility. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy, though slightly longer than the minimal ideal.

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 read-only query tool with annotations and a clear purpose, the description covers the essentials (official source, payment model, legal role). However, it omits any guidance on the optional authentication parameters (login/pkcs12) and the expected return structure, which leaves gaps given the rich schema and 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the six parameters (placa, renavam, login_cpf, login_senha, pkcs12_cert, pkcs12_pass). Since the schema is bare and the description must compensate for low coverage, this is a critical 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 opens with 'SEFAZ RS: Débitos Veiculares, consulta em fonte oficial', clearly stating the tool queries vehicle debts from an official source. The verb 'consulta' and specific resource distinguish it from generic platform sibling tools like authenticate or show_version.

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

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

The description provides clear context: it queries official Brazilian sources available to citizens, is hosted by the platform, and requires prepaid credit per query. It implies when to use this tool but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, slightly lowering from a perfect score.

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 safety profile is clear. The description adds the specific scope (MCP platform and adapter versions) but doesn't disclose behavior beyond that, such as whether it returns structured JSON or what 'adapter' exactly refers to. Given the annotations cover the key behavioral traits, a 3 is appropriate — it adds some context but not rich detail.

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 — a single sentence, front-loaded with the main action. It contains no filler or redundancy, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse. It fully deserves a 5 for appropriate sizing.

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: no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations that cover safety and idempotency. The description provides the essential context (what versions are shown) and is complete enough for an agent to understand the purpose. It doesn't need more detail about return format because there's no output schema, but the version names are clear. A 4 is justified given the low complexity and good 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter meaning. The schema is empty and coverage is 100%, meaning there is nothing undocumented. According to the rubric, 0 params = baseline 4, and the description correctly implies no input is needed, so it earns a 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It specifies the verb 'show' and the resource (versions), and it is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or connect. A slight, but not fatal, gap is that it doesn't explicitly mention what is NOT shown (e.g., toolkit-specific details), but it's clear enough.

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 context: it's a read-only informational tool with no parameters, so the agent can infer it's safe to call anytime. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like toolkit_info, which might also provide version-related information. With no exclusions or alternatives mentioned, it's a minimal but acceptable 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and idempotentHint: true, so the description's safety profile is well-covered. The description adds value by disclosing exactly what information is returned (installed MCPs, status, accounts, catalog counts), offering behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not contradict 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the key data points. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff 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?

For a zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers what the tool returns: installed MCPs, their connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it, and no critical information is missing given its simplicity.

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, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description correctly does not attempt to explain parameters. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, as there is no need for additional compensation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly defines the resource as 'the current toolkit state' with detailed specifics (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'show_version' or 'connect', making its purpose unmistakable.

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 when you need to inspect toolkit state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no direct comparison to siblings or 'use this when' guidance, so it relies on inference rather than explicit direction.

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