Servidores Federais Completa (Transparência)

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

The description discloses the behavioral implications beyond annotations: it explains the difference between permanent (non-expiring) and session-only connections, mentions the side effect of modifying server config, and indicates that no-args returns a link. This adds meaningful context that annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint) do not fully cover.

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 structured with clear alternatives and is front-loaded with the target audience. It is slightly verbose but every sentence serves a purpose, covering the why, how, and when. A more compact version could exist, but this is still efficient.

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 full authentication flow, including token acquisition and both usage modes. It doesn't detail return values or error handling, but given the simple tool signature (1 optional parameter, no output schema) and existing annotations, it is sufficiently complete 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 sole parameter 'token' is fully explained as a JWT to paste after the user pastes it, and its optionality is made clear: calling with no args returns a link. This completely compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, giving the agent all needed semantic 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: authenticating to MCP.AI for IDE agents. It explains the login flow ('log in in the browser, copy the access token') and provides two distinct usage modes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'connect' and 'marketplace' by focusing specifically on auth.

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 guidance on when to use each approach: adding the token to the server config for a permanent connection, or pasting it for a session-only login. It also explains the no-args flow to get the link, covering all usage scenarios clearly.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explaining the exact return behavior in both connected and missing-credential cases, going 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 concise and well-structured, with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then provide conditional details. 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?

The description explains the return values in key scenarios (all connected vs missing credentials), which is adequate for a simple status tool. It could be slightly more explicit about intermediate states or the contents of pending[], but it covers the essentials.

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 does not need to add parameter information, as there are none.

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, with specific details about the output in different scenarios. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than performing authentication.

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 usage context is implied: it is for checking connection status. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'authenticate', nor any exclusions mentioned.

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?

It discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: invoke runs uninstalled MCPs without bloating the toolkit, credential and payment failures return connect/checkout links, and search/describe surface installation state. It also explains that writes require admin, all of which is valuable context not available from annotations alone.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and core flow, and nearly every sentence adds relevant information for a complex 14-action tool. However, it is a long dense paragraph that could benefit from bullet points or section breaks, and it mixes languages ('pontualmente', 'consult um CPF').

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 its complexity, the description covers the main flows, auth requirements, one-off vs permanent installation, payment/connect edge cases, and the separate prompt library. It does not cover output/return formats or detailed error handling, but the absence of an output schema makes this an acceptable gap.

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%, so the description must compensate for 23 parameters. It adds meaning for the `action` values and the `tool_id`/invoke relationship, but many parameters (`limit`, `immediate`, `tier_slug`, `conversation`, prompt payload fields) are never explained, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 identifies the tool as the mcp.ai marketplace: a catalog of MCP/tool and the mechanism to run them. It names the main actions and distinguishes the core flow (search → describe → invoke), but does not explicitly contrast the marketplace with sibling tools like `authenticate` or `toolkit_info`.

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, actionable guidance: use `search` to discover, `describe` to choose a tool_id, `invoke` to run one-off, and `install` only for permanent toolkit additions. It also states that writes require workspace owner/admin, and clarifies when to use `request_mcp` vs `report_bug`.

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 idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds context about needing the conversation array for reproduction, but does not disclose additional side effects, authentication needs, or output behavior, which is a minor gap.

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 that conveys the core purpose and a key usage instruction without any 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?

With no output schema and 3 parameters (one required), the description is too terse. It omits the meaning of the required 'message' field, the optional 'context', and any return value or confirmation behavior, leaving the agent without full operational 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'conversation' parameter (as the 'conversation array') but leaves the required 'message' and optional 'context' parameters undefined, offering insufficient guidance for an agent.

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 ('Report') and resources ('bug, missing feature, or feedback'), which distinctly separates it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and 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 clearly implies when to use the tool (when reporting bugs/feedback) and adds a concrete instruction to include the conversation array for reproduction. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but those are not necessary given the distinct purpose.

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it shows versions but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as return format or any side effects. It is consistent 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 version-information tool, the description is complete. The annotations cover safety, and the simple purpose is fully conveyed without needing additional detail.

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 adds no parameter information, but none is needed since the input schema is empty and thus fully covered.

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 clearly identifies the resource as 'the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace, making the 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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any exclusions or conditions. The usage is only implied by the tool's name and description.

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, which covers the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context by specifying exactly what data is returned, including connection status and account linkage. This goes beyond just restating the annotations and clarifies the tool's behavior as a read-only state inspection.

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 primary action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then uses a colon to efficiently enumerate the four data categories. Every word adds value with 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?

Given the simplicity (no params, no output schema, read-only annotations), the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns in sufficient detail for an agent to identify when this tool is the right choice. The only gap is the lack of explicit usage instructions or edge cases, but for a simple status tool this is a minor omission.

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 description coverage is 100% by definition. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, but it does implicitly communicate that no input is required, which is helpful. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.

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 the current toolkit state' and enumerates the exact contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This specific verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version or transparencia_servidores_completa_consultar by focusing on the overall toolkit state rather than individual servers.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention situations where it would be appropriate or inappropriate to call, nor does it reference sibling tools. The existence of siblings like show_version suggests potential overlap, but the description doesn't address this.

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 (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds important behavioral details: the cost model (pay-per-query), no authentication needed, the public nature of the data, and LGPD compliance responsibility. This additional context is valuable.

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 four sentences long, each adding meaningful context (purpose, payment, access level, legal responsibility). While slightly verbose, it is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool's purpose, access, and legal aspects, but lacks crucial details about the 'completo' parameter, expected CPF format, and response structure. With no output schema, more specificity is needed for full completeness.

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 only mentions that CPF is the basis of the query but does not explain the 'completo' boolean parameter or any input format expectations. This leaves a significant gap for the agent.

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 complete data about a Federal Executive Branch public servant from the Transparency Portal using CPF, including remuneration and employment bonds. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling 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: it is a paid query using prepaid credits, requires no credentials, and accesses public information. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so this context effectively guides when to use the tool.

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