Tribunal TJSC: Visualizar Certidão

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful context beyond these: it explains the two authentication flows (permanent config vs. session token) and that calling with no args returns a login link. No contradiction with annotations, and the additional context on how the token is used enhances transparency.

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 slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. It front-loads the purpose and then details the two usage modes concisely. The structure is logical, starting with the permanent setup recommendation and then the session-only alternative.

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 an authentication tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: how to authenticate permanently, how to do session-only, and what the parameter is. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it doesn't describe the response format (e.g., success/failure) which could be useful.

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 'token' as a string, but the description provides meaning by specifying it should be a JWT and explains how it is used in both modes (as a header for permanent config or as the { token } argument for session login). With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well for the parameter's semantics.

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 by logging in and obtaining an access token. It uses specific verbs ('log in', 'copy the access token') and describes the resource (server config or session token). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'connect', 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?

The description provides explicit usage instructions: it recommends adding the token to the server config for permanent access, and offers two calling modes (with or without a token) for session-only login. It gives clear context on when to use each approach, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool vs. alternatives.

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, so safety is clear. The description adds useful behavioral details about conditional outputs (authenticated:true vs connect_url) and per-install URLs, which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention edge cases like partial connectivity, limiting transparency slightly.

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 with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and then explains the conditional outcomes, efficiently covering all essential information in a compact manner.

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 is simple (no params, no output schema) and annotations cover safety, the description is complete enough. It explains the two main states (all connected vs missing credentials) and mentions per-install URLs, which is sufficient for the tool's 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), and the description clarifies the output semantics, which is more valuable than parameter details. Thus, a baseline 4 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 returns connection status and URLs, with specific conditions for when authenticated is true and when connect_url is returned. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like authenticate or show_version, but the resource (connection status) is specific enough.

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 or get connect URLs when credentials are missing). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like authenticate. This is adequate but lacks explicit 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?

Beyond the sparse annotations, it discloses one-off execution semantics ('without adding the MCP to the toolkit and without bloating the tool list'), auth/payment link handoffs, retry behavior, and workspace owner/admin requirements for writes. This significantly exceeds what readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint alone provide.

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 single dense paragraph covers an enormous surface area (14 actions + prompt library + permissions + billing) without filler, and it front-loads the core workflow. Structure could be improved with bullets or separate sections, but the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 23-param, no-output-schema tool, the description explains the essential end-to-end flow and key return behaviors (profiles, connect/checkout links, prompt pages). Missing pieces include output structure for search/list_tools and per-parameter combinations, but the overall scenario coverage is strong.

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 there are 23 params; the description compensates for the action enum and the core flow (search→describe→invoke, tool_id, prompt_vars, prompt_slug), but most parameters (limit, query, arguments, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, report_context, request_details, prompt_targets, etc.) are never explained. The agent is left to infer their formats from names and defaults.

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 opens by identifying the tool as 'the official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them', with concrete example queries ('find an MCP that does X', 'consulta um CPF'). It then maps every major action (search/describe/invoke/install/list/subscribe/request/prompt library), clearly distinguishing the marketplace role from sibling auth/connect/report_bug 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?

Provides explicit decision rules: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', plus 'invoke works even when the MCP is NOT installed'. It also explains when to expect auth/checkout links and retry, lists admin-only writes, and covers the prompt-library sub-workflow, so an agent knows exactly when each action is appropriate.

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 the operation is non-destructive and idempotent, and the description does not contradict these. The description adds the useful behavioral note about including recent messages for reproduction but does not explain side effects, whether a response is returned, or how the report is handled.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides an actionable usage note, so every word earns its place.

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 reporting tool, the description covers the main inputs and reproduction guidance. It is slightly incomplete because `context` is unexplained and no output behavior is mentioned, but the absence of an output schema and nested objects lowers the need for deeper 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to carry parameter meaning. It partially does, clarifying that `conversation` is an array of recent messages and `message` is the report text. However, the `context` parameter is never explained, leaving one of three params ambiguous.

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 identifies the three kinds of content it handles: bugs, missing features, and feedback. It is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace, so an agent can easily select it for issue reporting.

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 text provides actionable context for when to use the tool and even specifies that the conversation array should be included for reproduction. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but no other sibling tool appears to serve a similar reporting or feedback 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=true and idempotentHint=true, which the description matches. The description adds the detail that it reports 'MCP platform and adapter versions,' but does not go further into behavior like output format or potential failure modes. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate.

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?

One sentence, perfectly concise, no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple version tool.

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 no output schema, the description is complete. It tells exactly what it shows and is consistent with sibling naming. No extra detail is needed.

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 zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered (100%). The description clarifies that it returns versions, which adds a small layer of meaning beyond the empty schema. Baseline for zero params is 4, and it meets that.

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 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like toolkit_info or marketplace by specifying exactly what versions it returns.

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 version info) and provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions. Since the tool has no parameters and is straightforward, it does not require extensive guidance, but it lacks any mention of when not to use it.

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 well covered. The description adds value by specifying the exact behavioral output (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts) beyond what annotations convey, earning a 4.

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 sentence that is both concise and information-dense, covering all essential points without fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then elaborates on the specifics, achieving 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 the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description fully captures the return semantics and scope. It lists all relevant output categories, making the tool's behavior entirely predictable. No gaps remain for a tool of this 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (no params to document). The description needs no parameter details, and the baseline for zero-param tools is 4. It correctly avoids inventing unnecessary semantics.

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: returning the current toolkit state, and enumerates specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts per MCP, catalog tool count). It unambiguously distinguishes itself from siblings like show_version (version info) and authenticate (auth flow).

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 its use as a read-only inspection tool, offering context for when to invoke it (to check toolkit state). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but given its self-contained nature and read-only annotation, a 4 is appropriate.

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 that the operation is a non-confidential official query, that it is paid via prepaid credits, and that LGPD data-controller responsibilities apply. No contradiction with the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations was found.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds context (official source, payment model, legal responsibility). It could omit the LGPD clause without losing operational clarity, but it is not unnecessarily long.

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 no output schema and no parameter descriptions, yet the description does not explain what inputs are needed or what a successful consultation returns. It covers the commercial and legal context well, but leaves a significant gap in operational detail for the agent to invoke the tool 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 schema has 0% description coverage and the description mentions none of the three parameters (cpf, cnpj, numero_pedido). The description does not compensate by explaining what values should be provided, how they relate, or which combination is expected beyond the required numero_pedido.

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 action ('Visualizar Certidão, consulta em fonte oficial') and the specific target resource ('Tribunal TJSC'). It also distinguishes itself from the unrelated generic sibling tools by naming the court and the certificate-consultation purpose.

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: this is a paid, official-source consultation requiring prepaid credits and no platform credentials. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but for a standalone certificate lookup tool, the guidance is sufficiently clear.

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