Tribunal TJPR: Processo

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains important behavior: permanent non-expiring vs session-only login, the need to paste a token, and the no-args behavior returning a login link. It is transparent about the core auth flow, though it does not discuss token security or what the response looks like for token-based calls.

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 but well-organized: it states the audience and purpose, then offers the recommended permanent method and the alternative session method, and finally the no-arg behavior. Every clause adds useful information without 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?

For a simple one-parameter authenticate tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential scenarios: browser login, token paste, permanent config, and no-args link retrieval. It does not specify the response format for token submission, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor 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 schema only defines an optional 'token' string with no description, but the description fully compensates by explaining exactly how to supply it as { token: '<jwt>' } or omit it to get a login link. This gives the agent complete guidance on the single parameter.

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 that this tool authenticates the MCP.AI server for IDE agents, describing the browser login and token flow. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like 'connect', so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation but the purpose is 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?

It provides clear usage context: use the config header for a permanent connection or pass a token for a session-only login, and call with no args to get the link. It gives actionable instructions but does not mention when not to use this tool or alternatives like 'connect'.

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 agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the two possible states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and what URLs are returned. It doesn't describe the exact structure of the response beyond the mentioned fields, but with annotations covering the safety profile, this is acceptable.

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 core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently covers the main behavior and the edge case (missing credentials) without any 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the two states and what URLs are returned. It could mention the format of the URLs or the exact structure of the response, but for a status-check tool with no inputs, this is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output 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 returns connection status and URLs, and distinguishes between the authenticated state and the missing-credentials state. It is specific about the resource (connection status) and the output (authenticated flag, pending array, connect URLs). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the sibling names (authenticate, marketplace, etc.) suggest this is the status-check tool, and the description makes that clear.

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 it: to check connection status and get URLs when credentials are missing. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (authenticate) suggests it's for checking rather than initiating auth. The guidance is adequate but not explicit about 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?

The description discloses behaviors beyond the minimal annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true). It explains that 'invoke works even when the MCP is NOT installed — it runs the tool pontualmente (one-off), without adding the MCP to the toolkit,' and details failure modes: 'if the MCP needs a credential/login, invoke returns a connect link; if it is paid and the wallet is empty, invoke returns a checkout/top-up link.' It also states permission requirements: 'Writes (install/uninstall/subscribe/cancel and the one-off install behind invoke) require workspace owner/admin.' This goes far beyond the structured 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 dense and front-loads the core flow ('Core flow:'), but it crams many clauses into a long paragraph. It uses all-caps emphasis ('KEY', 'PERMANENT') which aids readability. While every sentence adds value, the structure could be improved with lists or separation between MCP and prompt-library sections. It is not wasteful but slightly overloaded.

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, no output schema), the description covers the core actions well: invoking, installing, subscribing, and the prompt library. It mentions 'subscribe/cancel handle per-MCP billing' but does not address the 'resume' action or parameters like 'immediate', 'conversation', 'cancel_reason', etc. It is comprehensive for main flows but lacks detail for less-common actions and edge cases, leaving an agent to guess parameter usage for some actions.

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 directly explain individual parameters. However, it adds meaning to the 'action' enum by describing each action's purpose (search, describe, invoke, install, etc.) and references mcp_id/tool_id/arguments implicitly in the flow. But the many prompt_* and request_* parameters remain unexplained. The description provides high-level semantics but does not fully compensate for the lack of per-parameter documentation across 23 params.

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 role as 'the official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It lists concrete capabilities (search, describe, invoke) and distinguishes the marketplace from sibling tools like authenticate or connect by covering both catalog and execution. The verb+resource structure is specific and non-tautological.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and actionable: 'Core flow: action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns one MCP's full profile... invoke RUNS that tool.' It also compares actions directly: 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use.' It distinguishes the prompt library ('It also carries the mcp.ai PROMPT LIBRARY, which is about ready-made prompt TEXT rather than MCPs'). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use 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 readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, covering side-effect and repeatability. The description adds the requirement to include a conversation array, which is useful behavioral context. It does not disclose any additional outcomes (e.g., where the report goes), and there is 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has only 3 parameters, no output schema, and simple behavior. The description covers the essential usage and the key parameter (conversation). It does not explain the 'context' parameter, which is a minor gap, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a reporting 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly mentions the 'conversation' parameter (as an array for reproduction) but does not explain 'context' or elaborate on the 'message' parameter beyond implying it is the report text. This is insufficient for full parameter understanding.

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 specific verbs (report, send) and identifies the resource (bug/feedback). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or show_version, which are unrelated.

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 an explicit instruction to 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction,' which gives some usage guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or contrast with alternatives, so the usage context is implied rather than 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, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about what exactly is being shown (current MCP platform and adapter versions), which is useful beyond the structured annotations. No output schema exists, but the description adequately communicates what information is returned.

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 clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it extremely concise and well-structured.

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 tool with strong annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It explains what the tool returns, and no additional context about parameters, types, or complex behavior is necessary. The output schema is absent, but the expected return is well implied by the description.

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 no parameters, so according to the rubric, the baseline is 4. The description could not add parameter-specific semantics because none exist, and it does not need to.

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' with a clear resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), making the tool's purpose immediately evident. It also naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which involve actions or other domains.

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 the tool is for informational retrieval of version details. There are no explicit exclusions or alternatives, but for a zero-parameter read-only tool, the usage context is sufficiently clear and no alternative is needed.

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. The description adds valuable context by specifying exactly what information is returned (installed MCPs, status, accounts, catalog counts), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not mention side effects, but none are expected for a read-only info tool, so this 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the main purpose and then lists the specific information returned. There is no fluff, and every part adds value. It is concise and well-structured.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what the tool does and what it returns. It lists the exact categories of information, making it complete for its intended use. The presence of annotations also reduces the need for further behavioral 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 does not need to explain any parameters, and the schema has no properties. The description effectively communicates what the tool does without needing 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates specific content (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which perform actions rather than report status.

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 for inspecting toolkit state, which is evident from its read-only nature and content listing. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but given its role as an informational tool, the context is clear enough 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?

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context beyond that: prepaid credit is consumed, no platform credentials are needed, the data is non-confidential, and the client is responsible for LGPD compliance. It does not mention response behavior, but the annotations are clear about potential outcomes.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the description remains concise, with only a few sentences. Some redundancy exists between 'consulta em fonte oficial' and 'informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais', but the extra legal/pricing context 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?

For a 13-parameter tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It explains the commercial and legal context, but it does not cover the query semantics, expected output, or criteria for selecting the right combination of parameters.

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 13 parameters but 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the possible parameters such as cpf, numero_processo, or instancia. The agent receives no guidance about what those fields mean, what is needed, or exactly which filters can be combined.

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 resource (TJPR court process) and the action (consulta/consultation) against an official source. While it is not a full imperative sentence, the first clause is enough to distinguish the tool from the generic 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 implies when to use the tool: to retrieve official TJPR case information, without platform credentials, and with prepaid credit. However, it does not explicitly describe when not to use it nor name alternative tools for different scenarios.

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