Servidores Federais (Transparência)

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description explains that adding to config creates a permanent, non-expiring connection, and pasting a token gives session-only login. This discloses side effects and persistence behavior. It does not contradict 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 three sentences but somewhat rambling, with redundant instructions like 'log in in the browser, copy the access token' followed by detailed usage. It could be tightened, but the essential information is present 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 tool with no output schema and one optional parameter, the description covers the primary behaviors: how to obtain the login link, how to use the token, and the distinction between permanent and session-only authentication. It lacks error handling or post-auth behavior, but that is not critical for this simple 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 schema only defines an optional 'token' string with no description. The description fully explains the parameter: providing it with a JWT authenticates for the session, while omitting it returns the login link. This is comprehensive compensation for zero schema 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: to authenticate IDE agents via browser login and access token. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on authentication with token/cookie, whereas alternatives like 'connect' likely serve different connection purposes. However, it is somewhat verbose and mixes instructions with 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 provides explicit instructions on two usage modes: permanent config header vs session-only token. It also states that calling with no args returns the login link. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the usage context is clear.

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 behavioral detail beyond the annotations. It explains exactly what the tool returns in different states: 'authenticated:true and empty pending[]' when connected, and 'connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs' when credentials are missing. This enriches the readOnly/idempotent hints 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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by concise conditional behavior. Every word earns its place; 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool with rich annotations, the description fully covers the tool's behavior and return values in the two relevant scenarios. No output schema is needed since the response are described directly. The description is complete in context.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. It correctly focuses on behavior instead.

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 and resource: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It also differentiates from siblings by focusing on status rather than authentication (authenticate), app info (toolkit_info), or other functions. The conditional behaviors (connected vs. missing credentials) further clarify the tool's role.

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 obtain connection URLs. It provides context by describing different scenarios (all providers connected vs. missing credentials), but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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?

With annotations only indicating readOnly=false and openWorld=true, the description carries valuable extra context: invoke runs uninstalled MCPs one-off without bloating the tool list, missing credentials produce a connect link, unpaid paid tools produce a checkout/top-up link, and all writes require workspace owner/admin. This goes well 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 information-dense and front-loaded with the core marketplace positioning, but it is a single long paragraph with many semicolons and em-dashes. Every sentence adds value, but the structure could be improved with bullets or separation of marketplace vs prompt-library concerns.

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 14 actions, 23 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotation detail, the description covers the vast majority of behavior: discovery, execution, install vs invoke, auth requirements, billing edge cases, installed-status flags, prompt library operations, and admin write permissions. Minor gaps like the 'resume' action are acceptable given the breadth.

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% with 23 parameters, so the description must compensate — and it does. It maps action values to their purpose, explains how tool_id is chosen from describe, covers prompt-related fields, and clarifies the arguments flow for invoke. While not every parameter is mentioned, the key decision-driving parameters are clearly explained.

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 is the official mcp.ai marketplace, the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, and the way to run them. It defines the core flow (search → describe → invoke) and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by covering both discovery and execution, plus the prompt library.

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 extensive when-to-use guidance: prefer invoke for one-off use, install only for permanent toolkit membership, list_tools for currently callable tools, subscribe/cancel for billing, report_bug for feedback, request_mcp for new MCPs, and search_prompts/get_prompt/publish_prompt for prompt text. It also explains the retry flow after connect/checkout links.

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 indicate this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds context that the conversation should be included for reproduction, which clarifies the expected input but does not disclose side effects, rate limits, or post-submission behavior. It provides some additive value, but not enough to warrant a higher score.

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 sentences long, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the key usage tip in the second. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundant or extraneous content. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 relatively simple (3 parameters, no output schema), but the description leaves gaps: it does not explain the 'message' parameter, the 'context' parameter, or the expected format of 'conversation' (string vs. array). It offers a basic understanding of what to do but is not fully self-contained for an agent to invoke without additional assumptions.

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 for parameter meaning. It only mentions 'conversation' (calling it an 'array' while the schema defines it as a string) and omits the required 'message' parameter and the 'context' parameter entirely. This provides minimal and slightly misleading guidance for parameter 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' The verb 'report' and specific resources (bug, feature, feedback) make the action unambiguous. Since none of the sibling tools serve a similar function, this tool is clearly distinguished by its intended use.

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 concrete usage instruction: 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction,' which tells the user what to provide for effective use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Given that no sibling tools are feedback-related, the guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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, making the operational safety profile clear. The description adds 'current' to indicate live system state but does not elaborate on any other behavioral traits. Since annotations cover the necessary transparency, a score of 3 is appropriate for the minimal additional 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, and there is no 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?

Given the tool's minimal complexity—no parameters, no output schema, and complete annotations—the description fully captures its purpose and behavior. There is no meaningful gap in context for an agent to invoke this 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 and the schema is empty, with 100% schema coverage (vacuously). The description need not explain any parameters. Per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4, and the description adds no conflicting or missing 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 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions' clearly states a specific verb (show) and a specific resource (MCP platform and adapter versions). This unambiguously differentiates it from siblings like authenticate, marketplace, and report_bug, which all serve distinct purposes.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided, but the tool's purpose is straightforward and no sibling tool overlaps with version display. Usage is implied for retrieving version information, which is adequate for a simple utility with no 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by detailing exactly what state is reported (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), giving the agent a clear picture of the returned data without needing an output schema.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and then lists specific content elements. No wasted words 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?

For a simple, parameterless info tool with rich annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns in sufficient detail, covering the main areas an agent would need to know, and there are no hidden behaviors or complex interactions to disclose.

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; there is nothing to explain about input semantics. The description correctly focuses on the output instead. No additional parameter information is 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 ('Returns') and identifies a clear resource ('current toolkit state') with enumerated details (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which serve different purposes.

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 when to use this tool (whenever you need an overview of the toolkit state). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous given the sibling tools have distinct functions. A brief note on when not to use it would elevate this to a 5.

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, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it's hosted by the platform, requires no credentials, is pay-per-query with prepaid credit, accesses only public data, and places LGPD compliance on the client. This 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 moderately concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes several additional pieces of information (payment, legal), but each contributes to context. It could be tightened, but it is 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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), and annotations cover safety. The description covers purpose, payment, and data nature, but it does not explain parameter semantics or return behavior. This is an adequate but incomplete description that leaves gaps for the agent.

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 does not explain the parameters. It mentions 'CPF' as the key input, but does not describe format, required vs optional nature, or the meaning of 'completo'. Since coverage is very low and the description fails to compensate, the semantics remain unclear.

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: retrieving data about Federal Executive Branch public servants from the Transparency Portal using a CPF. It uses a specific verb ('Consulta') and resource ('Dados de um servidor...'), and it is distinct from the generic sibling tools like connect or authenticate.

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 (querying public servant data by CPF) and provides context about payment and public access, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Since sibling tools are generic and non-overlapping, the lack of explicit alternatives is not a major issue, but there is no direct guidance.

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