SEMA PA: Lista de Desmatamento Ilegal do Pará (LDI)

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

With annotations indicating non-read-only and idempotent behavior, the description adds meaningful context about two authentication modes (session-only vs permanent), the JWT token format, and the no-args link generation. It doesn't contradict annotations and enhances understanding of side effects.

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 approximately 60 words and well-structured, first identifying the target audience, then presenting the two authentication methods, and concluding with call syntax. Every sentence contributes useful information, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: how to authenticate, what token to use, and the no-args link behavior. It covers key aspects without requiring additional annotations or schema 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the 'token' parameter as a JWT for session-only login, and clarifies that calling with no args returns a link. This adds semantic meaning beyond the bare string type 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: facilitating authentication for IDE agents through browser login and token exchange. It distinguishes the tool's role from the config-based header method, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like '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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for session-only login via pasted JWT, and mentions the alternative of permanent header config. It also explains the no-args behavior to obtain a link, giving clear context for usage.

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, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful conditional details: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing.

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 concise sentences convey the core purpose and both relevant output states. Every sentence adds meaningful behavioral information with no 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool, the description fully explains the return behavior under both connected and missing-credential states. Since there is no output schema, the description adequately covers return values itself.

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 complete, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately has no parameter-semantics burden.

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 concrete output conditions. This is a specific verb+resource definition that distinguishes it from 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 clearly implies use when checking provider connectivity or retrieving connection URLs. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative-tool guidance, but the context is clear enough for a simple status 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?

The description discloses critical behavioral traits: invoke runs even without installation, returns connect links for credentials, returns checkout/top-up links for unpaid tools, and requires workspace owner/admin for writes. It also notes installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace flags, adding value beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint 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 long, dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence carries meaningful operational detail. It could be better structured with bullet points, but it is not excessively verbose given the tool's complexity (14 actions, 23 params).

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 discovery, execution, installation, billing, permissions, and the prompt library, and even explains return behavior for describe/invoke (connect link, checkout link). It omits details on actions like resume and immediate, and the output format for search/list_tools, but given no output schema and high complexity, it is 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?

With 23 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining the core action flow and mapping actions to parameters (search→mcp_id/query, describe→mcp_id, invoke→tool_id/arguments, prompt functions→prompt_slug, etc.). However, many parameters like immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, and prompt_targets remain unexplained, though their names offer some inference.

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 as 'the official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It specifies the core flows (search, describe, invoke) and distinguishes it from siblings by covering the full lifecycle of MCP discovery, execution, and management.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit.' It also explains when to use search, describe, list_tools, subscribe/cancel, and request_mcp, giving clear decision criteria.

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 indicate idempotent true, read-only false, destructive false, but the description adds no behavioral details (e.g., that it creates a ticket, is safe to retry, or does not modify existing data). It does not contradict annotations, but provides no additional transparency.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second provides a key usage detail. No redundant or filler content; it is 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description lacks complete context. It does not explain expected behavior after submission (e.g., returns a ticket ID), nor does it cover all parameters (missing message/context semantics). Additional details on side effects or return format would be needed for full 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 schema has three parameters (message required, context and conversation with defaults), but the description only hints at 'conversation' (mentioning 'conversation array'). It does not explain the purpose of 'message' or 'context', leaving most parameter semantics unspecified given 0% schema description 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 states the tool's purpose: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It uses a specific verb ('report') and identifies the resource (bug/feature/feedback), making the primary function 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 provides a usage hint ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use other sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'marketplace'). No conditions or exclusions are mentioned.

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, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context: hosted by the platform, no platform credentials required, payment required, official source, not confidential data, and LGPD compliance. It enriches beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 paragraph of about 4 sentences, efficient for the domain. It front-loads the core purpose and adds necessary caveats (payment, LGPD), but could be trimmed slightly; it's not overly verbose.

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?

With no output schema and a single undocumented parameter, the description should explain what 'car' represents and what the response contains. It only provides high-level context (official source, legalities) but misses parameter semantics and expected output, making it incomplete for effective 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description never explains the 'car' parameter. It does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. The only clue is that it's a query about deforestation, but 'car' (likely Rural Environmental Registry) is not defined, leaving the agent without essential 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 clearly states the tool queries the Illegal Deforestation List of Pará (LDI) from an official source, with the verb 'consultar' and a specific resource. It naturally distinguishes itself from generic platform siblings (authenticate, connect, etc.) by its domain-specific purpose.

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 mentions payment via prepaid credit and LGPD responsibility, giving some context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or list exclusions. It implies usage for official deforestation data lookups but lacks clear prerequisites or situational 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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds specificity about what versions are shown ('MCP platform and adapter'), which is useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Show', no filler. Perfectly concise.

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 no-parameter, read-only version check tool, the description is adequate. It names the exact information returned (MCP platform and adapter versions). The absence of an output schema is acceptable for such a simple tool, and annotations cover safety. It could mention if it returns a structured object, but not critical.

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 parameterschers and the schema coverage is complete (empty). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and there is no need for the description to elaborate on parameters. The description already clarifies the scope of the returned information.

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 clear verb ('show') and specifies the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'toolkit_info' by explicitly naming what versions are shown (MCP platform and adapter), making its purpose 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 as a status/version check, but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over sibling tools like 'toolkit_info' or 'authenticate'. However, since it is a simple, read-only information tool, the absence of exclusions is acceptable, and the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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 already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds no additional context about side effects, permissions, or rate limits, so it does not enhance transparency 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, concise sentence that starts with the main purpose and lists the returned information. It is well-structured and avoids unnecessary detail.

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 explains the contents of the returned state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts) but does not specify the format or structure of the response. Given there is no output schema, this is a reasonable level of detail, though it could mention potential error cases or the exact shape of the data.

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 in the schema, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The description does not mention any parameters, and since none exist, it is adequate.

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 returns the current toolkit state, listing installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog counts. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools which perform authentication, connection, etc.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, without noting situations (e.g., checking status before connecting) that would trigger its use.

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