Tribunal TJMT: Certidão do 1º Grau (Pessoa Física)

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-destructive, non-read-only behavior, and the description adds meaningful context: browser login flow, permanent token via header, session-only via pasted JWT, and no-args behavior. It does not disclose response details or failure behavior, but is consistent with the annotations and adds useful operational traits.

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?

Two information-dense sentences cover purpose, best practice, alternative usage, and invocation patterns. There is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation data.

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 auth tool with no output schema, the description covers the main invocation modes and user workflow. It does not describe the response shape beyond 'get the link' or error cases, but the complexity is low enough that the tool is understandable and callable.

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 fully explain the optional 'token' parameter, and it does. It specifies that token is a JWT for session-only auth, that calling without args returns the login link, and clarifies the intended payload usage. This is strong compensation for 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 identifies the tool as an authentication mechanism for MCP.AI in IDE agents, with a specific verb and resource: log in and obtain/copy an access token. It is unambiguous and likely distinct from siblings like 'connect', but it does not explicitly call out differences from 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 gives practical usage context: recommends the permanent config-header approach over session-only login, and explains when to call with a token versus with no arguments to get a link. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or comparison to sibling tools, but the mode selection guidance 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 readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable details about response structure (authenticated, pending[], connect_url) that go beyond annotations, enhancing transparency without contradicting any annotation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and no fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's output and conditions, making it a model of conciseness.

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 is fully complete. It explains all possible response scenarios and requires no 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly avoids adding unnecessary parameter details. With no params, the baseline is 4, but the description adds value by explaining output states, earning a 5.

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 'Returns connection status and URLs' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status retrieval, and it provides conditional details that fully define its scope.

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 context by explaining behavior in different states (all providers connected vs. missing credentials). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to call this tool.

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 only declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds rich behavioral context beyond this: invoke runs one-off 'without bloating the tool list,' returns connect/checkout links when credentials or payment are needed, and notes that writes require workspace owner/admin. It also clarifies the installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace flags. No contradiction with the readOnlyHint=false annotation.

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 (~250 words) but proportionate to a tool with 14 actions and 23 params. It is front-loaded with the core flow, then the critical invoke behavior, then install-vs-invoke guidance, then secondary actions, then the prompt library aside. Every sentence earns its place, though a single dense paragraph without section breaks makes it harder to scan than it could be.

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 extreme complexity (14-action enum, 23 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential ground well: core flow, auth/payment edge cases, install vs invoke distinction, permission model, and the prompt library subsystem. Gaps remain for return-value formats per action (no output schema to fall back on) and several lesser-used params (immediate, tier_slug, conversation), but the coverage is strong overall.

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% across 23 parameters, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully covers the core flow params (action, query, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments) and the prompt library params (prompt_slug, prompt_title, etc.), but leaves several undocumented — immediate, tier_slug, conversation, cancel_comment, report_context, request_details, prompt_targets, prompt_category, prompt_body — with no mention of their semantics or defaults. Partial compensation at best.

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,' with a clear verb+resource framing. It enumerates the core flow (search → describe → invoke) and covers every action in the enum, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does and how the actions relate to one another.

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?

Excellent when-to-use guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT,' plus explicit edge-case handling ('If the MCP needs a credential/login, invoke returns a connect link'). It names alternatives (list_tools, request_mcp when 'nothing fits') and states the permission requirement for writes (owner/admin). This is model guidance.

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 indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description does not add behavioral details beyond that, such as whether the report is stored, if there are limits, or what the outcome is. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description only hints at usage, not what happens when invoked.

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?

Two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. No wasted words, and the reproduction guidance is valuable.

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 with 3 parameters, but schema coverage is low and there is no output schema. The description provides enough to use it for basic reporting, but lacks details on response behavior or parameter formatting, though the simplicity and idempotent annotation mitigate this.

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 array for reproduction, which adds context to the 'conversation' parameter. However, it does not explain 'message' or 'context' meanings beyond what the schema properties imply, leaving some gaps.

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 the tool's purpose: report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback. It distinguishes from siblings by naming the resource (bug report) and the action (report/send), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings.

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?

Description implies when to use: when encountering a bug or providing feedback, and mentions including conversation array for reproduction. It gives contextual guidance but no explicit exclusions or alternatives, which is acceptable given the sibling set.

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, covering safety. The description adds the specific scope (platform and adapter versions) but doesn't disclose return format or edge behavior, which is acceptable for a simple read operation.

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, front-loaded verb, no filler. Every word is useful.

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 params, no output schema, and read-only annotations, one sentence fully conveys the tool's purpose. It is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the tool requires no input, and schema coverage is 100% with an empty object.

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 explicit verb 'Show' with a clear resource: 'current MCP platform and adapter versions'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling 'toolkit_info' by naming the exact version types.

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?

Description implies when to use (when you need version numbers) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like 'toolkit_info' could overlap, and the description doesn't clarify the differentiation.

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, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by specifying what the state includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), providing useful behavioral context 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and lists the returned elements. No wasted words, perfect conciseness.

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 there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It does so explicitly, listing the exact types of information provided (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). For a simple parameterless info tool, this is 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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the schema fully documents the input. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific details because none exist. It correctly relies on 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 returns the current toolkit state and enumerates specific elements (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like show_version (which likely returns version info) and marketplace (which may list available MCPs).

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 conveys a clear context—use this to inspect overall toolkit state—but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. It implies usage for status checks, but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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 behavioral context: it requires prepaid credit (cost), no platform credentials, and mentions LGPD compliance/data ownership. This goes beyond the annotations, providing operational details that an agent would need.

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 (~4 sentences), immediately states the purpose, and includes operational details (payment, credentials) without fluff. It's well-structured and front-loaded with the main action.

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 purpose, payment, and legal context, which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it. However, it doesn't describe the output structure or errors, but given the simplicity, it's acceptable. It could mention typical usage scenario, but it's fairly 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?

The schema has no descriptions for the three parameters, and the description does not explain them. The tool name hints that it's for individual certificates from TJMT first degree, but the parameters (cpf, birthdate, cert type) are not elaborated, leaving the agent to guess formats or meaning. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should have compensated with parameter explanations, but it doesn't.

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: querying a certificate (Certidão) from the TJMT first degree court for individuals. It specifies the verb 'consulta' (query) and the resource 'Certidão do 1º Grau (Pessoa Física)'. It distinguishes this from sibling tools (authenticate, marketplace, etc.) by explicitly naming the court and certificate 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 context on how to use the tool: payment with prepaid credit, no platform credentials needed, and that it queries official non-confidential data. It doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives, but there are no closely related siblings, so the guidance is adequate.

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