Tribunal TJMS: Cadastro de Pedido de Certidão (1º grau)

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

It discloses the consequences of both approaches (permanent non-expiring vs. session-only) and aligns with the idempotentHint annotation. No destructive or rate-limit behavior mentioned, but it's transparent about the token's lifespan and purpose.

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 somewhat wordy and mixes background context ('MCP.AI for IDE agents') with instructions. The structure is not as clean as it could be, but it remains understandable.

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 absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains inputs and expected outcomes (link or authentication). It does not detail edge cases or errors, but the core context is covered.

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 'token' parameter is clearly explained in the description: it is a JWT for direct authentication, or omitting it yields a link. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which has no description coverage, and compensates adequately.

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 implies authentication for IDE agents, mentioning logging in and obtaining a token. However, it is phrased more as instructions than a direct purpose statement, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 two usage methods (providing a token or getting a link) and explains when to use each (permanent config vs. session-only). It does not explicitly compare with sibling tools, but the guidance is useful and sufficient for the tool itself.

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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by describing the two output scenarios (authenticated:true with empty pending, and connect_url when missing), which provides behavioral insight beyond 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?

Description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then providing conditional details. No redundant information, every phrase contributes.

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 status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the two primary states (all connected and missing credentials) sufficiently. It could mention the exact structure of connect_url, but it's not necessary for basic usage. Annotations cover safety, so this 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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter semantics are needed; the description focuses on behavior, which 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?

Description clearly states 'Returns connection status and URLs', identifying the tool as a status retrieval function. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate which performs actions, and show_version which reports version 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?

Provides conditional behavior based on connection state ('When all providers are connected...', 'When credentials are missing...'), giving context on when it returns different outputs. However, it doesn't explicitly instruct when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as stating 'use this to check status before authenticating'.

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 goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that invoke runs tools one-off without bloating the toolkit, returns connect links for missing credentials, returns checkout/top-up links for empty wallets, and that writes require workspace owner/admin. It also notes search/describe flag installation state. No contradiction with the provided annotations exists.

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 long, but it is front-loaded with the core flow and organized around the marketplace and prompt-library subsystems. Each major sentence adds meaningful guidance, though bullet structure or section breaks would improve scannability.

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 complex 14-action, 23-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers discovery, execution, installation semantics, auth requirements, billing edge cases, and the prompt-library sub-features. Some actions such as resume, immediate, and tier_slug remain unexplained, and return-value behavior is not specified, but coverage is strong relative to the complexity.

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 parameters, the description must compensate but only explains the action enum at a high level and references mcp_id/tool_id conceptually. It does not explain the formats or semantics of arguments, prompt_vars, conversation, immediate, tier_slug, or several other fields, leaving significant 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 establishes the tool as the official mcp.ai marketplace and states its dual role: discovering MCPs/tools in the catalog and running them. It explicitly maps the core flow (search → describe → invoke) and separates it from sibling tools like toolkit_info and authenticate by emphasizing its in-platform catalog and execution responsibilities.

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 workflow guidance: use search to discover, describe to inspect, invoke for one-off runs, install for permanent toolkit additions, and list_tools for current callability. It also names alternatives and exceptions, such as preferring invoke over install for occasional use and using request_mcp when nothing fits.

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 include idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which already indicate safe, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the conversation array should be included for reproduction, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose what happens after reporting (e.g., whether it creates a ticket, sends an email) or any rate limits. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose and then a key usage hint. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff.

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 (3 params, no output schema, no nested objects) and annotations cover safety. The description explains the purpose and the key parameter (conversation). However, it doesn't clarify the format of the conversation array (e.g., JSON string) or what happens after submission. For a simple reporting tool, this is adequate but not 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the 'conversation' parameter explicitly ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'), which adds meaning. However, it does not explain 'context' or 'message' beyond what the schema names imply. The description adds some value but not full compensation for the 0% 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: reporting bugs, missing features, or feedback. It identifies the resource (bug/feature/feedback) and the action (report/send). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, but the sibling tools are unrelated (authentication, marketplace, etc.), so differentiation is implicit.

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 this tool (when reporting issues or feedback) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Given the sibling tools are unrelated, the usage context is clear enough, but no exclusions or alternative references are 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?

Annotations already declare this as safe (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive). The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying exactly what is reported—current MCP platform and adapter versions—which tells the agent the nature of the output 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word earns its place, making it maximally 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 zero-parameter, non-mutating version query with strong read-only annotations, the description is complete. It states what the tool shows and implies a no-frills informational response, requiring no additional context to invoke 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 carries no semantic burden. The baseline for parameter-less tools is 4, and the description appropriately explains the informational output rather than 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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and clearly identifies what is shown ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is readily distinguishable from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or report_bug.

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 version information about the MCP platform or adapters is needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but for a simple version query no exclusion is necessary.

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 useful context by specifying exactly what state is returned, which is valuable 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently enumerates the returned information without wasted words. Every part of it 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?

For a simple, side-effect-free introspection tool with no parameters and strong annotations, the description fully covers what the agent should expect. Even without an output schema, it lists the main categories of returned data.

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 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline 4 applies.

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 names the exact resource ('current toolkit state') followed by a precise list of contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like show_version 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 context is clear: this is the tool for inspecting overall toolkit state and connectivity. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a zero-parameter status/read-only tool the usage context is easy to infer.

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 discloses payment requirements, data privacy (LGPD), and that data is not confidential, which goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations. However, it does not clearly state the operational behavior (e.g., whether it only reads or also registers requests), leaving some ambiguity.

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 not overly verbose, but includes boilerplate about LGPD and payment that might be less relevant. It is reasonably sized but not tightly focused on the action and prerequisites.

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 high parameter count (11) and no output schema, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain the expected output, how to structure requests, or any domain-specific details beyond the generic official-source statement. This is far from enough for an agent to correctly invoke the 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 has 11 parameters with 0% coverage in the description. The description does not explain any parameter names (comarca, modelo, nome_razao_social, etc.), their formats, or how they are used. The agent is left to infer meaning from the parameter names alone.

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 mixes 'Cadastro de Pedido de Certidão' (registration of certificate request) with 'consulta' (query), making the core action ambiguous. The name implies 'consultar' but the description starts with 'Cadastro', which could mean a write operation. It lacks a clear, single verb-resource statement.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no references to sibling tools, exclusions, or conditions. The description only states generic facts about official sources and legal responsibilities.

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