SEFAZ RS: NFC-e Resumida

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

Annotations only provide idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context: the two authentication modes (permanent via config header vs session-only via token), the need for browser login, and the behavior when calling with no args. It does not contradict any 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 moderately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is organized into two clear options (permanent vs session-only), though it includes some informal phrasing and a slightly convoluted sentence structure that could be tightened without losing 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the main workflows, including prerequisites (browser login) and both usage modes. It stops short of discussing error cases or the exact response format, but those are less critical for an authentication 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?

The input schema has a single 'token' property with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining that token expects a JWT string, when to pass it (after user pastes it), and when to omit it (to get the login link). This is essential meaning beyond the 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: to authenticate IDE agents to the MCP.AI server. It provides a specific verb (log in/authenticate) and resource (MCP.AI for IDE agents), and distinguishes from siblings like 'connect' by describing the login process and access token handling.

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 instructions: add the token to the server's config for a permanent connection, or paste it for a session-only login. It also clarifies calling with no args to get the link. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, 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 already mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the baseline for additional disclosure is lowered. The description adds value by explaining the return payload in two specific states (all connected vs. missing credentials), which is not conveyed by the schema or annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 main purpose, and each sentence provides essential detail. There is no unnecessary fluff or repetition. It is concise yet informative, earning a perfect 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 simplicity of the tool (no params, no output schema), the description covers the primary states: all connected and missing credentials. It implies partial connectivity through the `pending[]` array but does not explicitly detail that case. While not exhaustive, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the guidelines, the baseline for 0 params is 4. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description needs no further elaboration, and this score reflects that adequately.

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 details on two outcomes. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'authenticate' (which likely handles authentication) and other informational tools (e.g., 'show_version'). The verb 'returns' plus the resource 'connection status and URLs' 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 implies usage for checking connection status, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. There is no mention of 'use this when you need to verify connectivity' or 'do not use this to initiate authentication.' Sibling tools exist but no comparative guidance is given.

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 the annotations by explaining that invoke works even for uninstalled MCPs, runs one-off, does not add to the toolkit, returns connect/checkout links for auth or empty wallet, and that writes require workspace owner/admin. It also explains the installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace difference and the prompt-library shareable links. This is a substantial behavioral disclosure beyond `readOnlyHint` and `destructiveHint`.

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 structured around a clear flow: core marketplace, then tool discovery/execution, then exceptions, then prompt library. Most sentences add value, though the long prose around billing/credential links and the repeated emphasis on 'one-off' and 'without adding the MCP' could be trimmed without loss.

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, the description covers the main end-to-end scenarios, permission requirements, billing/credential fallbacks, and the distinct prompt-library functionality. The main gap is that it does not enumerate or explain the 23 parameters enough to fully let an experienced agent drive every action without additional inference, and there is no output schema to fill in expected returns.

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 23 parameters and 0% schema descriptions, the description must compensate heavily, but it only mentions broad concepts such as intent/search, `action`, tool_id, and prompt-library actions. It does not explain `limit`, `tier_slug`, `cancel_reason`, `conversation`, `prompt_body`, or most other parameters. It gives useful high-level semantics for the core flow but leaves most of the parameters 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 clearly identifies the domain and purpose: the mcp.ai marketplace for discovering, running, installing, and billing MCP/tools, plus a prompt library. It is clear, but it is not a single verb+resource description—it is an umbrella for many sub-capabilities—and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like report_bug, which seems to overlap with the report_bug action mentioned in the description.

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 actionable selection guidance: use `invoke` for one-off/occasional use, use `install` to make an MCP permanent, prefer invoke unless permanence is needed, use `list_tools` to see what is currently callable, and use subscribe/cancel for billing. It also explains the recommended flow from `search` to `describe` to the correct `tool_id` to `invoke`, giving clear when-to-use versus 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?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the useful context that the conversation array is used for reproduction, but it does not elaborate on side effects, rate limits, or post-submission behavior. 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 two sentences, immediately states the purpose, and includes a single, relevant usage instruction. There is no redundant or filler 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?

For a simple reporting tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is sufficient for correct invocation. It covers the primary purpose and the key conversation parameter. The only gap is the unexplained 'context' parameter, but it has a default value and is not required, so the completeness is adequate.

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 explicitly explains the 'conversation' parameter as 'the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction,' adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the 'context' parameter or further clarify 'message,' leaving part of the parameters under-documented.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It uses specific action verbs and a distinct resource scope, which differentiates it from the unrelated 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 for when to use the tool (reporting issues) and gives a specific instruction: 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated, 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?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false Picture, so the description adds context about payment per query with pre-paid creditpas, no platform credentials required, and LGPD compliance. It also clarifies the data is not confidential and the client is data controller. This goes beyond annotations to help the agent understand the operational and legal context. 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 concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the key purpose. The additional legal context is relevant but could be condensed. It earns its place by informing about payment and data responsibility, which are important for agent decision-making.

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 a simple query with one parameter slash no output schema. However, the description lacks details about the expected input format, the output returned, and any limitations (e.g., data availability, rate limits). The context about payment and LGPD is useful but does not compensate for the missing technical guidance. Given the complexity is low, but feedback from parameter semantics is low, overall completeness is insufficient.

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 does not explain the 'nfce' parameter at all. The parameter name suggests it is the NFC-e identifier, but the description fails to provide format, examples, or how to obtain it. This is a significant gap, forcing the agent to guess the expected input.

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 mentions the tool queries NFC-e Resumida from SEFAZ RS official source. It indicates the purpose but is somewhat vague about what 'resumida' means or what specific operation is performed (e.g., retrieve summary of an NFC-e). It does not clearly distinguish from siblings, but the name and description align enough to give a basic understanding.

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 context about the source and legal aspects but does not specify when to use this tool versus others. It mentions the query is official and not confidential, but no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling tools like authenticate and connect suggest a setup context, but the description does not clarify integration or prerequisites.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by specifying that both MCP platform and adapter versions are shown, going beyond the generic title 'Show Version'.

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 delivers complete information without any redundant words. It is perfectly front-loaded 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?

For a tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does. There are no missing behavioral details or prerequisites that need explaining.

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 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no extra parameter information because there is nothing to document.

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 'Show' and identifies the exact resource: current MCP platform and adapter versions. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, connect, or marketplace, which concern different operations.

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 the tool (when you need version information) but does not explicitly state alternatives or conditions for use. There is no mention of 'use this instead of X' or when not to use it, though the simplicity of the tool makes this 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which cover safety. The description adds value by specifying the exact data returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools), providing behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict any annotation.

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, dense sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state'), followed by a concise list of returned elements. Every phrase adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and no special constraints beyond being read-only. The description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returnsahan. It is simple enough that no further details are needed; the list of returned items (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts) is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it.

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 annotated in the schema)Skip that. Since there are no parameters, the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description provides no extra parameter info because none exists. This 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 components: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect (which establishes connections) or marketplace (which likely lists available 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 gives clear context on what the tool provides (state overview) and when it would be useful (inspecting current setup). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but given the informational nature, there are no exclusions needed beyond what is evident. The sibling list shows this is the only pure read-only status tool for the toolkit, so usage is well-defined.

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