SEFAZ TO: IPVA

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

The description does not disclose behavioral details such as side effects, whether it opens a browser, or what happens after successful authentication. The annotations indicate it is not read-only and is idempotent, but the description adds little beyond the login instruction.

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 verbose and poorly structured, mixing instructions and explanations. It contains unnecessary phrases like 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)' and the flow is not clearly organized. A more concise and structured description would be beneficial.

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 does not explain the full authentication flow, including what happens when a token is provided (e.g., validation, success/failure responses). It only mentions that without a token it returns a link, but the outcome of providing a token is unclear. The absence of an output schema further limits completeness.

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

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

The parameter 'token' is described: 'call with { token: "<jwt>" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link.' This explains how to use the token and the behavior when omitted. However, the token format is not fully specified.

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 indicates the tool is for authentication by logging in and obtaining a token, but it is not stated explicitly and is mixed with instructions. It mentions 'log in in the browser' and 'copy the access token', which suggests the purpose, but the phrasing is convoluted.

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 some usage guidance by differentiating between permanent configuration and session-only login via this tool. It says 'Best: add it to this server's config as a header... Or paste it here for a session-only login.' However, it does not clearly state when to use this tool 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?

The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations by explaining what the response contains in both the fully-authenticated state and the missing-credentials state. Since annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, this contextual detail further clarifies the tool's behavior 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds meaningful behavioral context. 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 simple zero-parameter read-only status tool with helpful annotations, the description is complete: it states the output in both relevant scenarios without needing an output schema or additional explanation.

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 no parameters, so the schema imposes no burden on the description. The description still explains the output and meaning, meeting the baseline expected for a zero-parameter tool.

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, using a specific verb with a well-defined resource. It also clarifies the two possible states (all connected vs. missing credentials), which differentiates it from sibling tools like authenticate.

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 this tool: when checking whether providers are connected or retrieving connection URLs. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the connection-state framing and sibling set make the intended usage 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?

The annotations include readOnlyHint: false, idempotentHint: false, and destructiveHint: false. The description goes beyond these limited annotations to specify that invoke runs tools 'pontualmente' without installing, that auth/connect links are returned, and that billing/top-up links are provided whenwallet is empty. It also mentions permission requirements for writes, adding valuable behavioral context not covered by 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 dense paragraph covering many topics. It includes essential information, but its length (over 200 words) and lack of structure (no bullet points or separate sections for actions) makes it harder to scan. Each sentence does add value, but the format could be improved with better organization, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 high complexity (23 parameters, multiple actions, billing, auth, prompt library) and minimal annotations (no output schema, low schema coverage), the description is quite thorough. It explains the overall flow, distinguishes between search/describe/invoke, mentions permission requirements, and covers additional features like prompt library and subscriptions. It's not perfect but provides a solid understanding of the tool's full scope.

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 define each parameter individually.Defaulting to 3 is reasonable because the description explains the action enum values (search, describe, install, etc.) and connects them to the core flow. However, it does not clarify other parameters like 'immediate', 'conversation', or 'cancel_reason' beyond what the schema shows. Since there are 23 parameters, the description could do more to explain how arguments and prompt_vars are used, so no higher than a 3.

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 main purpose: to access the mcp.ai marketplace, discover MCPs, and run them. It enumerates the core actions (search, describe, invoke) and explains the overall value. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like connect and authenticate by covering the marketplace functionality broadly.

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 explicit usage guidance: when to use 'invoke' vs 'install', preferring invoke for one-off use and install for permanent additions. It also clarifies that writes require owner/admin permissions, and when to use 'report_bug', 'request_mcp', etc. This is among the most detailed usage guidance I've seen.

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 provide context: readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond instructing to include conversation history, which is more of a usage hint. There is no contract contradiction, but also no significant disclosure about effects or outputs.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with intent and key instruction. No wasted words, structure is practical and highly skimmable.

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 three parameters, one of which is required, and no output schema. The description explains the overall purpose and one parameter, but fails to explain the meaning or expected content of 'message' and 'context', nor what the agent should expect in return. It's a weak but functional description for a simple reporting tool.

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

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

Schema solr description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of param explanation. It only clarifies the 'conversation' parameter's role, while the required 'message' parameter and 'context' are left undefined. This is inadequate for relying entirely on 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 with specific verbs ('report', 'send feedback') and explicitly lists covered targets (bug, missing feature, feedback). It is unambiguously distinct in purpose from siblings 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 gives a clear when-to-use condition (to report bugs/features/feedback) and practical guidance to include the conversation array for reproduction. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling toolset is unrelated, so no exclusions are necessary.

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 readOnly and idempotent behavior. The description adds practical context beyond annotations: no platform credentials, prepaid per-query payment, the data is not confidential, and LGPD responsibilities. This gives the agent important operational and legal behavior 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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. A few sentences are somewhat repetitive (e.g., 'fonte oficial' and 'fontes e órgãos oficiais'), but they also provide distinct legal/payment details, so overall each sentence 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?

Given no output schema, the description should ideally clarify what the agent receives back. It clearly covers the query source, legal context, and payment model, but it does not describe the return content or the parameter relationships, leaving some ambiguity for a data-query tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain how 'placa', 'renavam', 'cpf', or 'cnpj' should be used or formatted. The IPVA context implies their purpose, but the description adds no real semantic value beyond the schema parameter names.

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

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

The description states a specific verb+resource: 'consulta em fonte oficial' for 'SEFAZ TO: IPVA'. It clearly identifies the object (IPVA) and source (SEFAZ TO official) and is easily distinguished from sibling tools like authenticate or 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 clear context about payment model, official source, and LGPD responsibility, which helps the agent understand how the tool is used. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that it reports both platform and adapter versions, which clarifies the scope beyond just the tool name. There is no contradiction with 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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It states the exact functionality upfront and does not repeat information already present in the annotations or schema.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully conveys its purpose and the annotations cover safety behaviors. An agent has enough information to correctly select and invoke this tool without any missing critical details.

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 schema is fully self-sufficient and there is nothing for the description to add. Per the baseline for no-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not misrepresent or omit any parameter details.

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' with a precise resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like authenticate and marketplace, which have entirely different 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 description implies that the tool should be used to check runtime versions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusion conditions. For a simple version-info tool, the intended usage is fairly obvious, but explicit guidance is absent.

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 covered. The description adds value by detailing the exact returned content (installed MCPs, status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the basic read-only marker. No hidden side effects are disclosed, but none are expected given 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-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every clause adds meaningful detail about the return contents, with 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?

The tool has no parameters and no output schema, but the description fully explains what the tool returns with sufficient specificity (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool count). Given the tool's simplicity and the safety annotations, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the return value, which is the only meaningful aspect of this tool.

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 identifies the resource as 'current toolkit state', enumerating the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version, which reports version info, and authenticate/connect, which are action-oriented.

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 usage context clear: use this to inspect the toolkit's current state. It implies a read-only overview role, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. No exclusion criteria are provided, but the intended use is obvious.

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