Tribunal TJMA: Nada Consta

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

The annotations already mark this as non-destructive and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context: the token can be non-expiring if configured server-side or session-only if pasted, and no-args invocation returns a login link. 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?

The description is three sentences and front-loads the core purpose. It is somewhat dense and could be tightened, but every sentence contributes operational guidance without being bloated.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the important scenarios: permanent config, session-only token, and no-args link retrieval. It could mention the exact return format or error behavior, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 only a bare 'token' string property. The description compensates by explaining the token is a JWT and that the call can be made with or without it, adding meaning well 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: authenticating an IDE agent by logging in via browser and providing an access token. It distinguishes the two modes (permanent config vs session-only token) and is specific about the resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the 'connect' sibling tool.

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 guidance: add the token to the server config for a permanent connection, or paste it for session-only login. It also explains calling with no args to get the login link. It does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like 'connect', but the 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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is established. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the two conditional response patterns: authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs. connect_url with per-install URLs. This provides useful state-dependent transparency beyond the raw 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds important information. There is no filler, redundant phrasing, or reference to structured fields that the schema already conveys, making it an excellent example of concise yet informative documentation.

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 that this is a zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational contexts: all providers connected vs. credentials missing. It identifies the critical returned fields and URLs, so the agent has enough information to invoke the tool and interpret its result without further assistance.

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 description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity. With no parameters to explain, the baseline is 4; the description correctly focuses instead on return behavior and conditions rather than adding irrelevant parameter detail.

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') with a clear resource ('connection status and URLs') and goes on to define the expected output in both connected and missing-credential states. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate by framing it as a read-only status check rather than a setup/authentication action.

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 this tool should be used: to check connection state and retrieve URLs when credentials may be absent. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'do not use when...', so it falls just short of full explicit exclusionary guidance, but the context is strong and unambiguous.

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 minimal (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, etc.), so the description carries the burden. It transparently reveals that invoke works without installing the MCP, that credentials trigger a connect link, and that unpaid usage triggers a checkout/top-up link. It also discloses write permission requirements (workspace owner/admin) and the one-off nature of invoke. This exceeds annotation coverage and aligns with openWorldHint 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 long (multiple paragraphs) but densely packed with essential information. It uses a logical structure: main purpose, core flow, key notes on invoke/install, permissions, and a separate section for the prompt library. Despite its length, every sentence contributes critical operational guidance, avoiding fluff. The structure aids comprehension for a tool with many sub-actions.

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 complexity (23 params, 14 actions, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the primary workflow, edge cases (auth, payment), permission requirements, and the auxiliary prompt library. It addresses when to use each action and what to expect, making it sufficient for an agent to select and correctly invoke the tool in most scenarios.

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, the description is expected to compensate. It explains the action enum and core parameters indirectly (mcp_id, tool_id, arguments) through the flow narrative, and mentions prompt-related parameters (prompt_slug, prompt_vars). However, many parameters (limit, immediate, tier_slug, conversation, cancel_reason, request_details, etc.) are never mapped, leaving the agent guessing. It provides partial context but not systematic parameter documentation.

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 defines the tool as the official marketplace for MCPs, with a specific role as a catalog and execution platform. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate or connect by detailing its core actions (search, describe, invoke, install) and the prompt library. The verb+resource is precise, and it differentiates sub-flows effectively.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Core flow: action=search → describe → invoke', and contrasts invoke vs install: 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use.' It also covers when to use prompt library functions and notes permission requirements for writes. This is clear, practical, and distinguishes among sub-actions.

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 the tool as idempotent (idempotentHint: true) and non-destructive (destructiveHint: false). The description adds the reproduction context via the conversation array but doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits such as side effects or required permissions. This is comparable to the get_calls example, scoring a 3.

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 succinct sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes one key usage instruction. There is zero filler or redundant 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the core purpose and reproduction guidance, but the lack of parameter details and the type mismatch for 'conversation' create ambiguity. An agent would struggle to populate the parameters correctly without additional 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 does mention the 'conversation' parameter and its purpose, but it refers to it as an 'array' while the schema defines it as a string with default '[]'. It does not explain 'message' or 'context' parameters, leaving meaning unclear. This is insufficient given the 0% 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: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('bug, missing feature, feedback'), and the sibling tools (e.g., authenticate, marketplace, tribunal) are distinctly different, 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (reporting bugs/features/feedback) and adds a usage instruction ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are so different that the context 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 specify readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds scope ('platform and adapter versions') but does not disclose return format or other behavioral details. This is acceptable for a minimal read-only tool, but not highly informative.

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 complete meaning without unnecessary words. It is 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, good annotations, no output schema), the description is sufficient. It could mention return format or typical use, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a significant 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so parameter semantics are trivial. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because there are no parameter ambiguities to resolve.

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' uses a specific verb ('show') and a clear resource (platform and adapter versions). It is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace, which involve different actions.

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 or alternative exclusions are provided. However, for a zero-parameter informational tool, the usage context is implied: it shows version information when that is needed. This is clear but not explicit.

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, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is safe and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns state, but does not disclose any caveats such as performance implications, potential for stale data, or that it might not force a refresh. Given the bar is lower with annotations, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 gets directly to the point needly listing the main output categoriescars. It earns its place with zero fluff, though it could be structured slightly better with a relative clause, but it is efficient 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?

Given the tool's complexity is low (0 params, no output schema), the description sufficiently lists what the tool returns. It covers the main aspects needed for the agent to understand the tool's purpose and output categories. However, it could mention that it reflects the current state and not live connection checks, but not essential.

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 parameters, schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds no parameter details, but no parameters exist, so baseline 4 is appropriate per instructions. No further compensation 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 clearly states the tool returns toolkit state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts). It uses specific nouns and lists the key information, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like show_version or authenticate, so it lacks clear sibling differentiation.

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: call when you need the current toolkit state, including connection and dependency relationships. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., 'use this instead of show_version when you need connectivity details') or when not to use it. Context is clear enough but no exclusions or alternative guidance is given.

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 meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses the payment model, lack of credential requirements, data controller responsibility under LGPD, and that the data is not confidential. This complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations 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?

Three sentences efficiently front-load the core purpose, then add practical details (payment, hosting, legal responsibility). Every sentence contributes unique information, and there is 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?

While the description covers purpose, payment, and LGPD aspects, it critically omits parameter semantics, expected return values, and domain-specific meaning of terms like 'Nada Consta', 'instancia', and 'natureza'. With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the tool cannot be reliably invoked without additional external knowledge.

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 provides zero explanation of the 7 input parameters (cpf, nome, natureza, birthdate, nome_mae, etc.), and the input schema also lacks descriptions or enums (0% coverage). There is no guidance on value formats, meanings, or required combinations, leaving the agent without essential information to fill parameters correctly.

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 a query for 'Nada Consta' from TJMA (Tribunal de Justiça do Maranhão) using official sources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace, which are platform-level operations, by specifying a specific court and query type.

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 practical usage context: prepaid credit is required, no platform credentials are needed, and it is intended for legitimate queries of official public data subject to LGPD. It does not explicitly compare to alternative query tools, but the sibling context makes the purpose unique, so the lack of exclusions is acceptable.

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