SEFAZ SP: Certidão Negativa de Débitos

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

The description clarifies side effects (session creation), persistence ("permanent, non-expiring" vs "session-only"), and behavior with no arguments ("get the link"). This goes well beyond the annotations, which only specify idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, by explaining the actual state changes involved.

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 block of text with multiple clauses and parentheticals, making it dense and slightly run-on. It front-loads the main action but could be improved with bullets or clearer separation of ideas. Every sentence adds value, but structure is suboptimal.

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 only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers invocation variants and configuration steps. It doesn't mention error cases or return format, but for the tool's simplicity, it is sufficiently 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?

Even though schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully explains the 'token' parameter as a pasted JWT and describes the no-argument behavior (returns a login link). This compensates for the missing parameter documentation in 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 implies authentication through imperative instructions ("log in in the browser, copy the access token") but never explicitly states the tool's purpose as a noun phrase. It's clear from context but indirect. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'connect'.

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

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

The description gives explicit guidance on the best approach ("Best: add it to this server's config...") and contrasts permanent vs. session-only login methods. It does not compare to sibling tools, but it clearly explains when to use each invocation type.

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. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying return behavior under different conditions (e.g., returns authenticated:true when connected, returns connect_url when credentials missing). This helps the agent predict outputs without an output schema.

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 uses conditional clauses to efficiently convey behavior. No redundant information or filler. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 two key states (all providers connected and credentials missing), which are likely common cases. However, it does not explicitly address partial connection states or provide details on the exact structure of the URLs. Given the simplicity and existing annotations, this is still reasonably 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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. With no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics.

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: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It distinguishes itself from sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status/URL retrieval rather than authentication actions. The conditional details ('When all providers are connected...', 'When credentials are missing...') further clarify the behavior.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool to check connection status or get URLs. However, there is no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or how it compares to alternatives like 'authenticate'. It could be improved by stating that this is for status queries, not for initiating connections.

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

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that writes 'require workspace owner/admin,' that invoke returns a connect link when credentials are needed, and that it returns a checkout/top-up link when payment is required. It also explains the one-off nature of invoke versus the permanent effect of install, plus installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace flags. This is rich behavioral context and does not contradict 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 one dense paragraph but packed with useful information: core flow, invoke-vs-install distinction, auth/billing links, permission requirements, and prompt library. Every segment earns its place, though the structure could be more scannable with bullets or action-by-action formatting. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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

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

Given 23 parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description covers the essential flows, edge cases, and permissions remarkably well. It explains return-link behavior, install vs one-off execution, and the prompt library workflow. Some gaps remain, such as the 'resume' action and parameters like immediate, conversation, limit, and query, so it is not fully exhaustive, but it is contextually sufficient for the main workflows.

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 does a good job explaining the high-signal action parameter and core identifiers (mcp_id, tool_id, arguments by implication), including action values like search, describe, invoke, install, and subscribe/cancel. However, many parameters such as limit, conversation, immediate, tier_slug, prompt_body, prompt_targets, request_details, and cancel_reason are left unexplained in both the schema and description, so the gap is only partially filled.

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 is 'the official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them' and then enumerates concrete actions (search, describe, invoke, install). It distinguishes itself from siblings by framing itself as both catalog and runner, rather than a narrow utility. The purpose is specific and unambiguous even though the tool is multi-action.

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 an explicit core flow: 'action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns one MCP's full profile ... → invoke RUNS that tool.' It also provides strong when-to-use guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit.' It additionally contrasts the prompt library ('ready-made prompt TEXT rather than MCPs') and names alternatives like list_tools and request_mcp.

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-destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds that the conversation array is used for reproduction, which is useful context, but it doesn't disclose potential side effects like data being sent externally or what happens after reporting. The bar is lower due to annotations, so this is adequate but not rich.

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 short, direct sentences. Every word earns its place—no filler 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?

This is a simple reporting tool with no output schema. The description provides the essential information (what to report, what to include) and is complete enough given the low complexity. It doesn't need to describe return values.

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 coverage, the description must compensate. It does explain that 'conversation' should contain recent messages for reproduction, but it doesn't elaborate on 'message' or 'context'. Partial compensation for three parameters, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It uses a specific verb with a clear resource, and is easily distinguished from the unrelated 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 implies when to use the tool (bug reports, features, feedback) and even gives reproduction guidance ('Include the conversation array with recent messages'). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling tool serves a similar purpose, so clear contextual use is provided.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description reinforces this with 'consulta'. It adds useful context beyond annotations: no platform credentials are required, queries are paid with prepaid credit, the data is public/non-confidential, and the client bears LGPD responsibility. It does not contradict 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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and then provides relevant operational and legal context (hosting, credentials, prepaid credit, public data, LGPD). It is somewhat dense but not bloated; each sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 two-parameter query tool, the description covers purpose, official source, cost, authentication, and privacy obligations. However, with no output schema and no parameter explanations, the agent is left uncertain about what the response looks like and how to supply the CPF/CNPJ. It is usable but not fully complete.

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

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

The schema provides only `cpf` and `cnpj` strings with no descriptions and 0% schema coverage. The description does not mention these parameters, their formats, whether one or both can be supplied, or any validation rules. The property names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds none of the needed semantic detail.

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 SP: Certidão Negativa de Débitos, consulta em fonte oficial', clearly identifying the exact resource (SEFAZ SP negative debt certificate) and the query action ('consulta'). It is easily distinguished from the generic sibling tools like authenticate, marketplace, and report_bug.

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

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor any exclusions or alternative suggestions. The description provides operational context (hosted, no credentials, prepaid credit, LGPD) but does not tell the agent when this tool is the appropriate choice among possible SEFAZ or certificate-related options.

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 clear. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the verb 'show', but for a simple read-only version check this is adequate. 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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and subject, achieving maximum clarity with minimal length.

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, no output schema, and safety annotations already covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description fully conveys what the tool does. There is no missing information that would leave an agent uncertain about invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, the description is not required to add parameter details, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'authenticate' or 'connect', none of which relate to version information.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, without contextual cues like 'when you need to check versions' or exclusions of similar tools (e.g., 'use instead of toolkit_info for detailed info').

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 establish readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by enumerating exactly what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), giving the agent a richer expectation of the operation's output.

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, tightly constructed sentence that front-loads the core action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the key data points in a compact, easily parsed format. No wasted words.

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

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

For a parameterless, read-only info tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies the return contents and scope. It leaves no ambiguity about what the agent should expect from invoking 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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema is trivially fully covered. With no parameters to describe, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly omits parameter details since none exist.

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 names the exact resource ('current toolkit state') with concrete details: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like authenticate and connect, and from 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 it clear that this tool is for inspecting toolkit state, which implies when to use it. However, it provides no explicit 'use when' statements or comparisons to alternatives such as show_version or marketplace, leaving differentiation to inference.

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