Sintegra (Cadastros Estaduais)

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

Adds meaningful context beyond annotations: differentiates between a permanent, non-expiring connection and a session-only login, and describes the behavior when called with no args. Annotations (idempotent, non-destructive) are not contradicted, and the description enriches understanding of the tool's 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 slightly verbose but well-structured: it front-loads the purpose, then explains the two invocation modes clearly. Each sentence carries useful information, making it efficient despite its 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 simple authentication tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: how to authenticate permanently, how to authenticate for a session, and how to obtain the login link. It is complete and self-contained.

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 defines a 'token' string without description. The description fully compensates by explaining that the token is a JWT for session-only login and that calling with no args retrieves the link. This gives complete parameter meaning beyond 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: authentication for IDE agents, with specific actions ('log in in the browser, copy the access token'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like connect or marketplace by focusing solely on authentication flows.

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?

Provides clear context on how to use the tool: permanent configuration via header vs session-only token paste, and the no-arg call to get a link. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the guidance within the tool is explicit and well-structured.

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 (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses specific conditional behavior: when all providers are connected, it returns authenticated:true and empty pending[]; when credentials are missing, it returns connect_url and per-install URLs. This adds meaningful 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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the main purpose and then provide essential conditional details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant 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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the main scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials) and the returned URLs. However, it does not explicitly address intermediate states (e.g., some providers connected), which could be a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for understanding the tool's behavior.

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%, so there is no need for the description to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, as there is nothing extra to add.

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 uses a specific verb and resource, and the conditional behavior distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, 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 when to use the tool (to check connection status and get URLs when credentials are missing) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear, though it could be improved by contrasting with authenticate.

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 disclosure goes well beyond annotations: it states that writes require admin, invoke runs tools one-off without installing, and credential/payment failures produce actionable links. These behavioral insights are critical for an agent to anticipate side effects and user interactions.

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 lengthy, dense paragraph that mixes MCP operations, billing, auth, and prompt library. It front-loads the main purpose but could benefit from bullet points or segmentation. The length is justified by complexity, but readability suffers.

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 14 actions and 23 parameters, the description is remarkably complete: it covers the discover-run-install lifecycle, prompt library, admin prerequisites, and failure-handling behaviors. It doesn't enumerate every return structure, but for a tool of this complexity, the coverage is solid.

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 description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining the key action parameter and the purpose of tool_id/arguments. It covers the main actions but leaves many parameters (tier_slug, immediate, prompt_targets, conversation) without explicit explanation. Still, the core flow demystifies the most important parameters.

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 explicitly defines the tool as 'the official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It outlines the core flow (search → describe → invoke) and covers the prompt library, making the tool's role unmistakable even among siblings.

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?

Provides clear usage directives like 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT.' It explains when invoke returns connect/checkout links and distinguishes list_tools from the discovery flow. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like connect/authenticate, so a 5 isn't warranted.

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 mentions that the conversation array should be included, implying the tool uses it for reproduction. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., ticket creation) or address the idempotentHint annotation. The annotations already provide readOnly and destructive flags, so the description adds limited behavioral context beyond input usage.

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 sentence, front-loads the purpose, and includes one essential usage instruction. No fluff or repetition.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic action and the key input requirement. However, it omits return expectations and misrepresents the conversation field type, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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%; the description attempts to explain the 'conversation' parameter but calls it an 'array' while the schema defines it as a string (likely JSON). It does not explain 'message' (which is required) or 'context' at all, so the semantic burden is largely unmet.

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 'report' and clearly identifies the resource as a bug, missing feature, or feedback. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or toolkit_info, none of which handle user feedback.

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?

It gives context for use: reporting issues or sending feedback. It also instructs to include the conversation array for reproduction, which is a useful how-to. However, it doesn't explicitly exclude alternative tools, but no siblings overlap.

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 the specific resource being queried but no additional behavioral traits beyond that.

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 front-loads the purpose with 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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description and annotations together provide sufficient context. The description could note the return format, but it's not necessary for basic usage.

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 schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds no further parameter information 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'show' and identifies the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like toolkit_info which likely provides broader 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the purpose is self-evident; it is implied for checking version information.

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 significant context beyond the annotations: it reveals the tool is hosted by the platform, requires no credentials, is pay-per-query with prepaid credit, and accesses public (non-private) data. It also explains the client's LGPD responsibilities. These details are not present in the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint 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, followed by necessary operational and compliance information. The LGPD legal note adds a bit of length but is relevant for handling personal data, so it 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?

The description covers important operational context (auth, payment, data privacy) but omits details on the return format or how to select between CPF and CNPJ. Given the lack of an output schema, this missing information makes the description somewhat incomplete for an agent to fully predict the tool's behavior.

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 description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains the main parameters (CPF ou CNPJ, IE, UF), but it says 'CPF ou CNPJ' while the schema requires both Cpf and Cnpj, creating ambiguity. The optional 'completo' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving a gap.

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: querying the Sintegra state taxpayer registration for a person or company using CPF/CNPJ, state registration, and UF. It uses a specific verb ('Consulta') and identifies the resource and input parameters, distinguishing it from the unrelated sibling platform 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 clear context on usage: it is hosted on the platform, requires no credentials, charges per query via prepaid credit, and accesses public data with LGPD compliance. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so no exclusion is needed.

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 read-only nature is established. The description adds specific detail about what state is returned (MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts), which goes beyond the 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, dense sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then lists the specific data included. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns with its list of four data categories. It does not describe the exact structure or format, but that is likely acceptable for a simple, no-parameter introspection 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and the description adds no parameter details. The baseline of 4 applies, as no parameter explanation is needed for a no-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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' and names the resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which perform actions rather than report state.

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 when the toolkit state is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like show_version. There are no direct comparisons or exclusions, so guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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