Seguro Defeso

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

The description reveals two behavioral modes (permanent vs. session) and states that calling with no args returns a link. It also notes the token is a JWT and mentions the Authorization header. Annotations indicate idempotent=true, and the description does not contradict this; instead, it adds useful context about side effects (creating a connection/login).

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 run-on paragraph that mixes configuration advice with API usage. While it contains essential information, it could be better structured with clear bullets or steps and more front-loaded 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 the primary use cases and parameter semantics, but it omits what the tool returns when a token is provided (success/error/response format). Since there is no output schema, that information is missing. It also doesn't mention potential errors or side effects beyond login.

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 only provides a token property with no description, but the description explains that token is a JWT for session login, and that omitting it returns a link. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 tool as handling authentication for IDE agents, with a specific verb 'log in' and instructions to obtain an access token via browser. It distinguishes itself by covering both permanent config and session-based login, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 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 provides explicit usage scenarios: for permanent access, add a bearer token to config; for session-only, pass a JWT token; and for obtaining a login link, call with no arguments. It gives clear 'best' and 'or' guidance, effectively telling the agent when to use each approach.

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 the safety profile. The description adds valuable context about the conditional return values, such as the pending array and connect_url behavior, which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's state-dependent semantics without contradicting 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, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the conditional details in the second. There is no redundancy or filler; every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers the key return states and URL behavior. It could be more exhaustive about edge cases (e.g., partial connection), but it provides enough for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret common results. Given the tool's simplicity, this is nearly 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 schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools. The description does not need to add parameter details, as there are none.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It then elaborates on the specific output states (authenticated:true and empty pending[] vs. connect_url and per-install URLs), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, which implies taking an action rather than checking status.

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 readiness but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It mentions behavioral conditions (all providers connected vs. missing credentials), which hints at scenarios, but no explicit exclusion or alternative reference 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 beyond the annotations by disclosing that invoke works even when the MCP is not installed, runs one-off without bloating the toolkit, and may return connect or checkout links requiring user action. It also states that writes (install/uninstall/subscribe/cancel and the one-off install behind invoke) require workspace owner/admin, adding important context not present in 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 informative but overly long, packing many details into a single paragraph. It front-loads the core purpose well, but the extensive enumeration of actions and edge cases could be more concise and better structured with separation or bullet points. Every sentence adds value, but the wall-of-text format hurts readability.

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?

Despite the high complexity (23 params, no output schema, many actions), the description covers a wide range of behavioral contexts: core flow, permissions, missing credential/payment scenarios, installed flags, and the prompt library. It is missing some parameter-level details and structured return format information, but the overall narrative provides substantial context for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities.

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 description coverage, the description needed to compensate by explaining parameters, but it only narratively references action values like 'search' and 'invoke' without systematically defining parameters like limit, query, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, immediate, tier_slug, prompt_vars, etc. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent trying to construct valid calls.

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 that serves as both the catalog of MCPs/tools and the way to run them. It explicitly covers capability requests and distinguishes the marketplace from other tools by detailing its core flow (search, describe, invoke) and listing specific actions like install, subscribe, and prompt library functions.

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 when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, such as 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT' and 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use.' It also explains when to use search/describe, list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, and the prompt library actions, giving clear alternatives within the same 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 indicate idempotent, non-read-only, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by instructing to include the conversation array for reproduction. However, it does not disclose what happens after reporting (e.g., ticket creation, response time), so it only partially extends 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and a key usage note. Every word earns its place with no 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?

As a simple tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and one parameter but omits critical parameter semantics for 'message' (required) and 'context'. It is adequate for basic orientation 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only mentions 'conversation array' for reproduction, leaving the required 'message' field and the 'context' field unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace, which serve different functions.

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 enumerates the three intended use cases (bug, missing feature, feedback), giving the agent clear context for when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but given the unrelated siblings, this is acceptable.

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 read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context: the service is pay-per-query, requires no authentication, and accesses only public official data. It also clarifies data controller responsibilities under LGPD, which goes beyond the annotation information.

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 three sentences with a clear lead sentence stating the core function. The subsequent sentences add operational and legal context without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 no output schema, but the description could still benefit from stating the return value or the behavior of the 'completo' flag. It covers purpose, access, and compliance well, but lacks details on response format or error cases, leaving some uncertainty.

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 mentions CPF and NIS as inputs, covering the two required fields. However, the optional 'completo' boolean parameter is not explained, leaving its effect ambiguous and potentially leading to incorrect invocation.

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: it verifies the receipt of Seguro Defeso using CPF and NIS. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from the sibling platform 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 usage context: it is hosted on the platform, requires no credentials, and is paid per query with prepaid credit. It also notes the public nature of the data and LGPD compliance, implying appropriate use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to 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 declare this as read-only and idempotent. The description adds context that the tool returns platform and adapter version information, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as output format, network dependence, or error conditions. Given the simple nature and existing annotations, this is adequate.

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 words, quickly conveying the tool's action and target.

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 tool with complete annotations, the description suffices. It fully states what the tool does, and no return-value documentation is necessary since no output schema exists.

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 accepts zero parameters, so there is no parameter information needed. The description does not need to add parameter semantics; it is already clear from 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 uses the specific verb 'Show' and clearly identifies the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does without explaining context, prerequisites, or exclusions. There is no mention of sibling tools or situations where this tool is preferred.

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, covering safety traits. The description adds specific behavioral context about the return payload (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, counts), which is valuable 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and then lists specific details. No redundant or vague wording.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies the return content, including installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool will produce.

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 parameters, and it appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than input 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 states a specific action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and enumerates the contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which serve 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool by defining its output as a snapshot of toolkit state. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the sibling tools' distinct purposes make the intended use obvious.

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