Sintegra CCC

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and no destructive intent; the description adds meaningful behavior by disclosing that no args returns a login link and that pasting a token results in session-only auth versus a permanent config header. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose. While slightly dense, every sentence provides necessary instructions for login flow, permanent configuration, and session-only usage.

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 auth tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the login flow, token usage, and permanent vs. session-only options. It does not describe the response format or potential failure modes, but these are adequately covered for an agent to invoke the tool 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 schema has one optional string token with no description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that token should be a JWT pasted by the user and that omitting it returns the login link, giving clear semantics for the only parameter.

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 communicates the authentication purpose: log in via browser, obtain an access token, and use it either as a permanent header or as a session-only token via the tool. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'connect' tool, but the intended function is 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 gives explicit usage instructions: call with no args to get the login link, or pass a token for session-only login, and recommends adding the token to the server config for a permanent connection. It does not compare to sibling tools, but it provides clear context for when to use each invocation style.

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 value by detailing the two distinct return states (authenticated with empty pending[] vs. missing credentials with connect_url), giving the agent a clear picture of likely responses.

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 sentences deliver purpose and behavioral detail with no fluff. The opening phrase 'Returns connection status and URLs' front-loads the core function.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It explains the two main states, but could be slightly richer about the shape of pending[] or the meaning of 'per-install URLs.' Still, for a low-complexity tool, it is adequate.

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 schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Parameter semantics are not applicable, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 with a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies the resource ('connection status and URLs'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate that establish connections.

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 use for checking connection state but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like authenticate or state when not to use it. The conditional behavior provides context, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives 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?

Discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: invoke works even when the MCP is not installed, returns a connect link for missing credentials and a checkout link for empty wallet, then instructs to retry. It also states 'Writes (install/uninstall/subscribe/cancel and the one-off install behind invoke) require workspace owner/admin,' adding essential context not captured by the basic 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 dense and front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, then flows through the core workflow and practical usage notes. However, its single-paragraph format intertwines many topics, making it less scannable than sectioned descriptions, though every sentence contributes useful information.

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 highly complex tool with no output schema, the description covers primary flows, edge cases (not installed, auth, billing), and permission requirements. It omits details on several parameters (immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, prompt_targets), but provides enough guidance for the core search→describe→invoke and install/subscribe workflows.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It explains the action enum values and the purpose of tool_id in the invoke flow, but it leaves the other 17+ parameters (e.g., limit, immediate, tier_slug, prompt_vars, cancel_reason) undocumented. It provides partial semantic coverage for a 23-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 is 'the official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It enumerates the core search/describe/invoke flow and distinguishes the marketplace's role from individual MCP tools, 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?

Provides an explicit flow: 'action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns one MCP's full profile → invoke RUNS that tool.' It gives direct when-to-use guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit,' and also clarifies when to use list_tools and request_mcp.

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, setting a safe profile. The description adds the requirement to include conversation for reproduction but doesn't disclose what happens after submission (e.g., ticket creation, response). No contradiction with 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?

Two short sentences that front-load the purpose and include a key usage instruction. No unnecessary 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?

The tool is simple, but the description doesn't cover the 'context' parameter or the expected response/return value (no output schema). The conversation array/string mismatch adds ambiguity, but the core purpose and reproduction guidance are clear.

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. It explains the 'conversation' parameter as needing recent messages for reproduction, but leaves 'context' unexplained. 'message' is self-evident. The description refers to an 'array' while the schema type is string, potentially confusing.

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.' This uses a specific verb and resource and distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate or marketplace, which have different roles.

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 for when to use the tool (reporting bugs/features/feedback) and includes a specific instruction to include the conversation array for reproduction. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but no sibling tool serves this purpose, so guidance is sufficient.

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 that it shows 'current' versions, implying a point-in-time snapshot, but it does not disclose output format, authentication needs, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 entire description is one short sentence of 10 words, immediately front-loading the action and target. There is no filler, redundancy, or 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?

For a simple, parameterless, read-only version-inspection tool, the description fully captures its function. Annotations cover safety, and the empty schema eliminates input ambiguity. The absence of an output schema is acceptable given the trivial nature of the result.

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 schema coverage is vacuously 100%. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description implies no inputs are needed, which aligns with the empty 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 identifies the resource as 'current MCP platform and adapter versions,' making the purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'toolkit_info' which might list capabilities or 'authenticate' for auth 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'toolkit_info' or 'authenticate.' There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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 and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context: payment model, public data nature, and LGPD compliance, which goes beyond the structured 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with purpose, followed by practical usage details. No redundant sentences; every part adds value.

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 purpose, data sourcing, and legal responsibility, but with no output schema and low parameter coverage, it misses details like the meaning of 'completo', mutual exclusivity of CPF/CNPJ, and expected response structure. These gaps are notable for a 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?

The description names the main parameters (CPF/CNPJ, inscrição estadual, UF), but schema coverage is 0% and the optional 'completo' parameter is not explained. It also does not clarify whether CPF and CNPJ are mutually exclusive despite schema listing both as required, creating 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?

The description clearly states it queries the CCC (Cadastro Centralizado de Contribuinte) from Sintegra using CPF/CNPJ, inscrição estadual, and UF. It uses a specific verb (Consulta) and resource, distinguishing it from sibling platform 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?

Provides clear context on when to use: for querying public taxpayer data with prepaid credit and no credentials. It does not explicitly describe exclusions or alternatives, but the intended use case is evident and not misleading.

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 safety is covered. The description adds useful context about exactly what information is returned, going 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 sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and result ('Returns the current toolkit state'), followed by a clear list of included details. No wasted words, 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 simple, parameterless read-only tool with rich annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. No output schema is present, but the description suffices for an agent to invoke the tool 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 the schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies. It correctly avoids adding unnecessary 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), and enumerates the contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This 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 makes the tool's use case obvious (when you need toolkit state), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives like show_version. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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