SENATRAN: Meus Veículos - Possuidor (Listagem)

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

The description discloses behavior beyond annotations: it explains that config-based authentication yields a permanent, non-expiring connection while token-based is session-only. It also outlines the browser login flow. This complements the annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) without contradiction, adding context about side effects and persistence.

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 longer than necessary but each sentence conveys critical information. It is well-structured: it leads with the purpose, then presents the two authentication methods. While it could be trimmed slightly, the extra detail is justified for a security-focused tool. It remains readable 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: browser login, config vs. token, and the no-args call to get a link. It implies the return value (the link) but could explicitly state response formats for token calls. Still, it is largely complete for its complexity level.

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 only defines 'token' as a string with no description. The description compensates fully by explaining the token is a JWT and shows how to use it: call with { token: '<jwt>' } for session login, or omit to get a link. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema, which otherwise provides no guidance.

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 the agent for IDE tools like Cursor. It specifies the action (log in, copy token) and distinguishes from siblings like connect and report_bug. The verb 'authenticate' combined with the explicit workflow leaves no ambiguity.

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: it recommends adding the token to server config for a permanent connection, or pasting it for a session-only login. It also explains when to call with a token versus no arguments, offering clear decision points for the agent. It effectively tells when to use this tool and the alternative configurations.

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, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it explains the conditional logic (e.g., when all providers are connected vs. when credentials are missing) and what fields are returned (authenticated, pending, connect_url). This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies expected 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 concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second elaborates on the behavioral outcomes. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to understanding. No redundancy or fluff.

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 that there is no output schema, the description must fully specify the return structure. It mentions fields like authenticated, pending, connect_url, and per-install URLs, but it does not describe the exact JSON shape or whether additional provider details are included. It covers the main scenarios but leaves some structural ambiguity. For a simple status tool, it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 (schema coverage 100% trivially), so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The description focuses on output semantics, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds value by clarifying the output states.

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: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It further specifies the two distinct output states (all connected vs. missing credentials), which makes it unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like authenticate (which handles auth actions) and show_version/toolkit_info (which likely report version/info), so the purpose is specific.

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—checking connection status—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks guidance such as 'use before authentication' or 'use to verify connectivity before other operations.' The information is present but not framed as usage instructions.

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 provides substantial behavioral context beyond the sparse annotations: 'invoke returns a connect link' for auth, 'if it is paid and the wallet is empty, invoke returns a checkout/top-up link', 'Writes (install/uninstall/subscribe/cancel and the one-off install behind invoke) require workspace owner/admin.' This significantly enhances understanding of side effects and requirements, complementing readOnlyHint:false and openWorldHint:true 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 dense and packs many details into long, run-on-like sentences, e.g., 'It also carries the mcp.ai PROMPT LIBRARY, which is about ready-made prompt TEXT rather than MCPs…'. While every sentence adds value, the structure could be improved with bullet points or clearer paragraph breaks for the two main concerns (MCP catalog/run and prompt library). It is not overly verbose but sacrifices readability for comprehensiveness.

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 lack of an output schema, the description reasonably covers the main workflows and error-handling (connect/checkout links), permissions, and the alternate prompt library. It omits some edge cases (e.g., behavior of resume, specifics of report_context) but overall provides a comprehensive picture suitable for an agent to use the tool effectively. The complexity of the tool is high, and the description meets the challenge.

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?

While schema description coverage is 0%, the description explains the core parameters (action, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments) within the flow: 'action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns one MCP's full profile... so you pick the right tool_id → invoke RUNS that tool.' It also elaborates on action enum values (search, describe, install, invoke, list_tools, etc.) and covers prompt library params. However, not all 23 parameters are addressed, leaving some ambiguity for auxiliaries like limit, immediate, and tier_slug.

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.' It covers all major capabilities (search, describe, install, invoke, prompt library) and differentiates from siblings by virtue of being the central marketplace. This is far beyond a tautology and provides a thorough understanding of 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?

Explicitly explains when to use invoke vs install: 'invoke works even when the MCP is NOT installed — it runs the tool pontualmente... Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit; prefer invoke for a single/occasional use.' It also contrasts with sibling tools like list_tools, subscribe/cancel, and request_mcp, providing clear 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 provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly disclosed. The description adds the guidance to include a conversation array, but it does not clarify what happens after submission, whether data is persisted, or any rate limits/retention factors.

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 concise, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys purpose and includes the most essential usage note. No filler words or redundant restatement of the name.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers primary use but leaves gaps: uncertain meaning of the 'context' parameter, no clarification of message format, and no statement of resultant behavior. It is a decent but not fully complete definition.

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 explains only the conversation parameter ('conversation array with recent messages') and relies on the name 'message' for clarity; the 'context' parameter remains unexplained. Also, 'conversation array' slightly conflicts with the schema's string type (default '[]'), adding potential ambiguity.

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?

Description clearly states the tool reports a bug, missing feature, or feedback, using the verb 'report' and specifying the resource/context. No sibling tool overlaps with this function, so the purpose is unambiguous and distinguishable.

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 guidance: include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it, but the siblings are unrelated, making the intended use evident from context.

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, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials but does require user credentials (implicit via parameters), costs per query, and involves LGPD responsibilities. It clearly states the data is not confidential and is the same available to citizens. This adds useful operational and legal 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 a single concise paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then provides operational context (payment, official source, LGPD). It has no filler or repetition, though it could be slightly more structured but remains appropriately brief.

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 has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the response contains, how pagination works (pagina), or how to provide credentials (login vs pkcs12). The complexity of the tool demands more detail on usage and return expectations, which the description fails to supply.

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 by explaining parameters. It does not mention any of the six parameters (cnpj, pagina, login_cpf, login_senha, pkcs12_cert, pkcs12_pass). While some parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema itself shows, leaving ambiguity about required formats or usage.

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: 'Meus Veículos - Possuidor (Listagem), consulta em fonte oficial' – a query for listing vehicles held by the possessor from an official source. It distinguishes from unrelated siblings like authenticate or connect, and the name itself reinforces the function.

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 usage context such as 'sem credenciais da plataforma', 'pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago', and notes it queries official Brazilian sources. It implicitly indicates a paid, on-demand query, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or exclusions. Since no similar sibling tools exist, the guidance is adequate though not exhaustive.

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. Description adds the specific details that it shows platform and adapter versions, which is slightly more than annotations but not much additional behavioral context.

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, no fluff, front-loaded with the action. Every word 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?

Tool has zero params, no output schema, and simple read behavior. Description fully covers what it does and is complete for an agent to invoke 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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without needing param explanations.

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?

Description clearly states the action (show) and specific resource (current MCP platform and adapter versions). It distinguishes from siblings like toolkit_info by being explicit about what versions are shown.

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?

Purpose is self-evident for a version-check tool. No explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the clear verb and resource imply straightforward usage without ambiguity.

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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description goes beyond by specifying exactly what data is returned (installed MCPs, connection statuses, accounts, catalog tool counts), which adds useful behavioral context 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?

Single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb 'Returns' and the resource. Every word adds value, no fluff or repetition. Perfectly sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description completely specifies what the tool provides. It covers all aspects of the 'toolkit state' relevant to a user, making it fully self-contained. No gaps that would leave an agent guessing.

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, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to explain parameters; the baseline of 4 is appropriate since the tool requires no input and the description correctly implies that no parameters are needed.

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?

Purpose is precise: 'Returns the current toolkit state' with a clear enumeration of the content (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect' which perform actions.

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 overall system status, but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives. Sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect' are action-oriented, making this read-only tool distinct by context, yet no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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