SINTEGRA: RO

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context that token-based login is session-only while config-based is permanent, and that no args returns a link. However, it does not disclose side effects like token validation failures or persistence beyond the session.

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 moderately concise but slightly verbose with informal phrasing and a side note about config setup. It is front-loaded with context, but every sentence is not tightly packed; some words could be trimmed without loss.

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 main invocation patterns but lacks details about response formats, error conditions, or how authentication relates to sibling tools. Since no output schema exists, more explicit return-value information would be beneficial.

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 coverage for the token parameter, the description thoroughly compensates by explaining it is a JWT from the browser, optional, and that omitting it changes behavior. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare 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 function: authenticate a user for MCP.AI by providing a login link or accepting a JWT token. It uses specific verbs and resource scope, making it distinct from sibling tools like connect 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?

The description explains two usage modes: passing a token for session-only login, or calling with no args to retrieve a login link. It also recommends the permanent config approach, giving practical guidance on when to use each option, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools.

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 fully aligns with the readOnly and idempotent annotations. It explains behavior in both states, including the fact that it returns URLs when credentials are missing. Since it's a read-only operation, no side effects are mentioned, which is correct.

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, front-loaded sentences. It immediately states the main function and then gives specific details for the two states. No filler or 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and only two possible states, the description covers all essential information. It explains the return format (authenticated, pending, connect_url) and the conditions for each, making it complete for practical use.

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 the description doesn't need to explain them. The tool's behavior is fully described without parameter context, which is appropriate. Baseline of 4 is exceeded because the output details are clearly specified.

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, specifying the exact return values (authenticated, pending[], connect_url) in different states. It immediately communicates the purpose and output.

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 it (to check connection status) and mentions the two key scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials). It doesn't explicitly say 'use it to verify connection' but the purpose is evident. It also indirectly contrasts with siblings like '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?

Despite annotations only providing openWorldHint=true (no read/destructive signals), the description carries the full transparency burden and largely delivers: it discloses that invoke runs one-off without adding to the toolkit, that auth-dependent calls return a connect link and paid calls return a checkout link, that writes require owner/admin, and that install modifies the workspace permanently. It loses one point for not covering failure behavior, rate limits, or what 'resume' does—leaving some behavioral aspects of this complex tool undisclosed.

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 run-on paragraph with no line breaks, bullets, or scannable structure—making it genuinely hard to parse despite substantial content. While it covers a lot of ground (marketplace flow, invoke behavior, permissions, prompt library), the lack of organization undermines its usefulness for quick reference by an agent.

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 tool with 23 params, 0 required, and no output schema, the description covers the macro-flow well: search→describe→invoke, auth/payment link handling, write-permission model, and prompt library operations. However, it's incomplete as a standalone reference: it doesn't explain what 'resume' does, what the 'immediate' flag controls, how to structure the arguments/prompt_vars JSON string, or what enumerate the action values completely. It provides a solid high-level grasp but not enough to fully operate the tool in all cases.

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 and 23 documented parameters, the description needed to compensate but only mentions a handful (action, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments) without explaining their shapes or relationships. The core flow text explains some action values (search/describe/invoke) but leaves the majority of params (limit, message, immediate, tier_slug, prompt_vars, request_details, etc.) completely unexplained. This is below the level needed for an agent to invoke the tool correctly with full 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 opening clause 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them' is a specific noun+resource identification that clearly distinguishes marketplace from siblings like authenticate or toolkit_info. The primary search→describe→invoke flow is explicit and the tool's dual role (catalog + prompt library) is named. However, the purpose is somewhat muddied by packing the entire API surface into a single unbroken paragraph, making the core purpose slightly harder to extract at a glance.

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?

There is useful intra-tool guidance—'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'—which helps choose among action values. However, there is zero guidance on when to use marketplace versus sibling tools (authenticate, connect, report_bug, toolkit_info). No described when/when-not or alternative-tool decision logic is provided.

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 are provided (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) which already indicate this is a non-destructive side-effectful operation. The description adds a behavioral note about including the conversation array for reproduction, which is useful context. However, it does not describe what happens after submission (e.g., confirmation, data handling) or any auth constraints, so it only partially exceeds annotation coverage.

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—two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second gives a specific usage tip about including the conversation array. There is no redundancy or filler, and it is front-loaded with the primary verb and subject.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the core purpose and a key usage hint. However, it omits expectations about the return value (e.g., confirmation message) or any error handling details. With no output schema, the description could have added such context, making it slightly incomplete but acceptable for a feedback 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'conversation' by specifying it should contain recent messages for reproduction, which is valuable. However, it does not clarify 'context' or elaborate on 'message' beyond the schema's obvious definition. Since one of three parameters is given context, it is a partial compensation but not comprehensive.

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: report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback. It uses a specific verb (report/send) and resource (bug/feature/feedback), and distinguishes it from unrelated siblings like authenticate or sintegra_ro_consultar. The additional instruction about including the conversation array adds specificity.

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 some guidance by instructing to include the conversation array for reproduction, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since the sibling tools are unrelated, the intended usage is implicit (e.g., when encountering a bug). However, there is no clear exclusion or alternative context, so it is adequate but basic.

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. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond this, but it does not contradict the annotations and the simple read-only nature is apparent.

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. Every word contributes directly to explaining what the tool does.

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, zero-parameter, read-only version query, the description is complete. The return value is reasonably implied by 'show versions', and the annotations sufficiently cover safety behavior, so no additional context is necessary.

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 has no parameter details to provide, and none are needed given the empty input 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Show') and clearly identifies the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It is distinguishable from siblings like authenticate, connect, and report_bug, and aligns with the tool's name without merely restating it.

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 usage context obvious: use this tool to retrieve current platform and adapter versions. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but for a zero-parameter version tool the context is clear enough.

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, and the description adds value by stating it requires prepaid credits, involves no platform credentials, and clarifies data is not confidential. It also adds a legal note about LGPD compliance. This goes beyond what annotations provide and does not contradict 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 short, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes necessary operational details (payment, legal). Each sentence adds relevant context without redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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 has 3 parameters and no output schema, but the description does not explain what the query returns, which parameter to use, or that it is specific to Rondônia (only in the name). It lacks critical operational details like required identifiers and expected results, making it incomplete for an agent to use 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 three parameters (ie, cpf, cnpj) are not described or explained. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not mention which parameter to provide or their formats. The labels are standard acronyms but the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already gives, and there is no guidance on combinations or requirements.

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 it performs a consultation in official sources (SINTEGRA RO), which is specific and clear. It does not explicitly mention the state (RO) in the text, but the tool name implies it. It distinguishes from siblings since siblings are unrelated tools (authenticate, connect, 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?

It implies usage for querying official Brazilian sources but does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives. There are no alternative consultation tools among siblings, so explicit exclusions are not needed. It mentions payment via prepaid credits, which is a prerequisite, but no clear when-to-use vs other tools.

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, non-destructive. The description adds useful context about the exact information returned (MCPs, statuses, accounts, counts), which is 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 that is densely informative, no filler. Front-loaded with the key action and then details the return content.

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 read-only status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned. It could specify exact response structure or field names, but given simplicity and annotations, it is complete enough.

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)Skip 0 params baseline is 4. No parameter semantics needed. The description is sufficient.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state') with enumerated details (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like connect 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 function clear (querying toolkit state) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives. Context is clear enough that an agent would know to call this for status checks, but no exclusions are stated.

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