Tribunal TJSP: Visualizar Certidão

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

The description explains behavior beyond annotations: it reveals that calling with no args returns a link for browser login, and that tokens are non-expiring if configured, but session-only if pasted. Annotations only say idempotent=true, which aligns with the description (no side effects). It does not contradict annotations and adds useful context about the permanence of the connection.

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 compact and informative, covering the main use cases in a single paragraph. It front-loads the purpose and then gives implementation details. It's slightly verbose with the colon in 'Best: add it...' but still efficient. 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?

Given that the tool is simple with only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It explains what happens when calling with or without arguments and the alternative permanent configuration. It does not explicitly state what the returned link looks like, but that may not be necessary for an agent.

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 explains the token parameter meaning: it is a JWT to be passed after the user pastes it, enabling a session-only login. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only declares the property name and type. With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the param's role.

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: it authenticates the IDE agent to the MCP server, either by generating a login link or by accepting a token. It specifies the resource (authentication for the server) and the action (log in). It is somewhat distinguishable from siblings like 'connect' and 'marketplace', though not explicitly contrasting them.

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 scenarios: when to call with no args (to get the login link) and when to call with a token (session-only login). It also advises a better alternative: adding the token to the server config for a permanent connection. This clearly guides the agent on when to use this tool and what to do.

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 read-only, idempotent, and non‑destructive. The description goes beyond annotations by detailing conditional response content (e.g., 'empty pending[]' vs. 'connect_url') which helps predict behavior without requiring a call. Slightly more detail (e.g., whether authentication is required) would push it higher, but it adds good context.

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-loads the core purpose, and uses specific, concrete details without unnecessary fluff. Every clause contributes value, making it concise yet highly informative.

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 nearly complete. It covers the main return cases and important fields, though it could mention error scenarios or the exact format of URLs. Given the low complexity, it does not need much more.

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 and the schema coverage is trivially 100%, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description meaningfully explains what the tool returns without needing to clarify inputs, fully compensating for the empty parameter list.

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 the tool 'Returns connection status and URLs,' using a specific verb and resource. It also hints at distinguishing behavior (e.g., 'authenticated:true and empty pending[]' vs. 'returns connect_url'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_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?

The description implies when to use the tool (to check connection status and obtain URLs) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. Since the purpose is self-contained and siblings are quite distinct, the absence of exclusions is acceptable, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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 key behaviors beyond annotations: it explains that invoke works even if the MCP is not installed, that it runs tool one-off without bloat, and that writes require workspace owner/admin. It also details connect links for auth and checkout links for payment, plus the prompt library's shareable links. These are critical operational details not covered by the minimal annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, etc.), and there is no 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 but packed with essential information. It follows a logical structure: first the marketplace overview, then the core flow, then key distinctions (invoke vs install), then auxiliary actions, and finally the prompt library. While a wall of text, it is efficient and each sentence contributes to understanding. Minor improvement could be breaking into sections, but it remains appropriately concise given 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?

Given the tool's broad scope (14 actions, many with prerequisites and side effects), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the entire workflow: search, describe, invoke, install/uninstall, subscribe/cancel, list_tools, report_bug, request_mcp, and the prompt library. It explains permission requirements, edge cases (credential/payment links), and flags for installed status. No output schema exists, so the description compensates by outlining what responses like connect/checkout links entail. This is thorough and covers all critical behavioral aspects.

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 23 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does so by explaining the primary `action` enum in detail (search, describe, invoke, install, etc.) and indirectly clarifies related parameters like `mcp_id`, `tool_id`, `arguments`, and prompt-related fields within the context of each action. However, it does not systematically define every parameter (e.g., `limit`, `query`, `conversation`), though defaults and usage are implied. Since the key `action` parameter is thoroughly covered, it adds significant value, but some gaps remain.

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 the official mcp.ai marketplace that catalogs and runs MCPs/tools, with specific capabilities like search, describe, invoke, install, and prompt library access. It distinguishes itself from siblings (e.g., authenticate, connect) by covering all marketplace actions, and it explicitly differentiates invoke (one-off) from install (permanent). The purpose is unambiguous and detailed.

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 guidance on when to use specific actions: 'action=search discovers MCPs by intent', 'describe returns one MCP's full profile', 'invoke RUNS that tool', and it contrasts invoke vs install: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'. It also notes permission requirements and the prompt library flow. This is clear when-to-use and alternatives coverage.

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 provide idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the purpose. It doesn't disclose side effects, return values, or any post-submission behavior, so it fails to add value 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 concise at two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and contains no fluff. Every sentence 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 tool with three strings and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It tells the agent what to submit and why, though it could mention expected response or error handling. Given the low complexity, 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must clarify parameters. It explains the 'message' (the report content) and hints at 'conversation' (for reproduction), but leaves 'context' undefined. This partial compensation earns a middling score.

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 the tool reports a bug, missing feature, or feedback, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) by focusing on 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?

It explains the primary use case (reporting bugs/feedback) and gives explicit guidance on including the conversation array for reproduction. While it doesn't mention exclusions, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when 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, which fully convey the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations imply—it does not describe output format, side effects, or required permissions. Given the annotations, the description provides minimal extra value, warranting a baseline score.

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 directly states the tool's function. There is no unnecessary wording, and it is immediately understandable without ambiguity.

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 extremely simple: no parameters, no output schema, and a clear purpose. The description adequately conveys what the tool does and what it returns (versions). While it does not detail the exact format of the version response, this is not critical for such a trivial tool. Given the minimal complexity, the description 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics. The schema coverage is 100% by default, and no additional meaning is required. A score of 4 reflects the baseline for zero-parameter tools, as there is no further burden on the description.

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 ('Show') and resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and report_bug, which have entirely different functions.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the tool is self-evident, the description does not mention typical use cases (e.g., checking compatibility or debugging) or explicitly exclude alternates. The description simply states what it does without contextual usage advice.

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 what the state includes (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose details like whether the state is cached, whether it triggers any network calls, or the format of the response. With annotations covering the safety aspects, 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then enumerates the specific components. Every phrase adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description is quite complete. It explains what the tool returns in enough detail for an agent to know what to expect. The only minor gap is that it doesn't mention whether the state is real-time or cached, but for a status tool, this is not critical. The description covers the essential 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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously, since there are no properties). The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns, which is the only relevant semantic content. Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies, and the description fulfills the need by clarifying the output.

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, listing specific elements: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is a specific verb+resource with a clear scope, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate or connect by focusing on state inspection rather than 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?

The description implies usage as a diagnostic/status check, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. Given the sibling tools are action-oriented (authenticate, connect, marketplace), the context is clear enough, but there is no explicit 'use this when' guidance or 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?

Read-only and idempotent behaviors are already in the annotations, but the description adds meaningful operational and legal context: prepaid billing, official-source data, non-confidential information, and LGPD responsibility. This supplements the annotation flags with important usage constraints.

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 main purpose is front-loaded, but the description is somewhat repetitive: 'consulta em fonte oficial' and 'Consulta informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais' say similar things. The LGPD clause is useful but adds length, so the text is moderately concise rather than tightly written.

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?

No output schema exists and parameter coverage is 0%, so the description must provide enough operational detail to complete a call successfully. It addresses commercial and legal context but does not explain the input fields, required 'numero_pedido', or what kind of certidão response will be returned.

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%, yet the description does not explain any of the four parameters (cpf, cnpj, pedido_data, numero_pedido) or mention required fields. There is no guidance on how to construct a valid request, so parameter semantics are essentially absent.

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 begins with 'Tribunal TJSP: Visualizar Certidão, consulta em fonte oficial', clearly identifying a specific verb, resource, and court context. This strongly distinguishes the tool from the unrelated siblings such as authenticate, connect, and 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 description provides some usage context: it is platform hosted, requires no platform credentials, and charges per consultation using prepaid credit. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it, leaving the guidance incomplete.

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