Tribunal TJTO: Certidão Judicial

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

The description reveals that no-args returns a login link, and that pasting a token creates a session-only login, while header config yields permanent connection. This goes beyond the annotations (which only indicate idempotent and non-read-only). It does not describe side effects like invalidating existing sessions, but it adds meaningful 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?

Three sentences pack the essential information, but the structure is a bit run-on with 'Best:' and 'Or'. Still, every part 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should state return values. It mentions that no-args returns a link, but doesn't explain what happens on successful token submission. It also lacks error scenarios. This is a gap for a 1-param auth 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 only defines an optional string token with no description. The description explains that the token is a JWT pasted by the user, and that omitting it triggers link generation. This fully compensates for the schema's 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 is for authentication, explaining the browser login process and token handling. It specifies a specific audience (IDE agents) and differentiates between two invocation modes, but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool 'connect'.

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 instructions for two usage paths: configuring a permanent header vs pasting a token for session-only login. It also states that calling with no args returns a link, guiding when to use which. However, it doesn't address when to use this tool over the sibling '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?

Read-only and idempotent annotations already cover the safety profile, and the description adds useful conditional behavior: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url when credentials are missing. It does not cover every partial-connectivity state, but adds meaningful 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific conditional outcomes. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or 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?

With no output schema, the description explains the main return values and key states. However, it does not explicitly describe partial-connectivity cases or the exact structure of pending[] and per-install URLs, leaving a minor completeness 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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description appropriately focuses on output behavior rather than inputs, and the baseline score of 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?

Description opens with 'Returns connection status and URLs', a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly differentiates from sibling 'authenticate' by presenting this as a status-reporting tool rather than an authentication action.

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 conditional output descriptions imply this is used to check whether providers are connected, but it never explicitly says when to use connect versus authenticate or other siblings. There are no direct exclusions or alternative tool references.

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 (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by disclosing detailed runtime behavior: 'invoke works even when the MCP is NOT installed — it runs the tool pontualmente (one-off), without adding the MCP to the toolkit.' It also describes error/authentication flows (connect links, checkout links, retry logic) and side effects like 'without bloating the tool list.' No contradiction with annotations; the descriptive detail is exemplary.

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 dense, multi-line wall of text with no paragraph breaks, bullets, or headers, making it hard to scan. While every sentence carries useful information, the lack of structure hurts readability. It front-loads the core flow well ('Core flow: action=search...') but could benefit from separating the prompt library and permission details into distinct sections.

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 tool with 23 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description covers the primary workflows (search, describe, invoke, install, prompt library) comprehensively, including edge cases like authentication barriers and payment requirements. It also clarifies permission rules. However, some actions like `resume` are never mentioned, and the interaction between parameters (e.g., when `arguments` is required) is not explained, leaving minor gaps.

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, the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly explain the most critical parameter, `action`, listing all its enum values in prose and their purposes. Core parameters like `query`, `mcp_id`, `tool_id`, `arguments` are described contextually (e.g., 'search discovers MCPs by intent'). However, some parameters like `immediate`, `tier_slug`, `conversation`, and `report_context` remain unexplained, leaving gaps for an agent trying to use advanced features.

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 — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It specifies core actions (search, describe, invoke) and distinguishes from sibling tools like report_bug by stating 'report_bug sends feedback' and 'request_mcp asks us to build a NEW MCP.' This is a specific verb+resource description that differentiates itself from alternatives.

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?

Explicit guidance is given on when to use which action: 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit' and 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use.' It also clarifies when to use the prompt library functions (search_prompts, get_prompt, publish_prompt) and explains permission requirements for writes: 'require workspace owner/admin.' This exceeds typical guidance by providing clear decision rules.

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 non-readonly, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral context (e.g., that the conversation is for reproduction) but does not explain side effects, error handling, or what happens after reporting. Since annotations cover basic traits, a score of 3 reflects moderate transparency 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 concise and well-structured: two sentences that clearly state the action and the key usage hint. No redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 simple tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description should provide enough context to use it effectively. It fails to explain 'message' and 'context', does not specify expected outcomes, and does not clarify the 'conversation' type mismatch. This leaves significant gaps for a user to understand the tool's complete behavior.

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 three parameters (message, context, conversation) with zero description coverage. The description only clarifies the purpose of 'conversation' (for reproduction), while 'message' and 'context' remain unexplained. Additionally, the description refers to 'conversation array' but the schema defines it as a string, creating a potential mismatch. This is insufficient for understanding parameter usage.

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 function: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It is specific and distinct from all sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.), which have no overlapping 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 implicit usage guidance by mentioning 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction,' which hints at when to use this tool (to report issues with reproduction context). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives, but given the unique purpose among siblings, 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.

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds no further behavioral details but does not contradict the annotations, so it meets the baseline without enhancement.

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 minimal and direct, containing only the essential information needed to understand the tool's action. No unnecessary words or details are present.

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 simple nature of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the purpose. However, it does not specify the format of the version information (e.g., string, object), which could be slightly more explicit.

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 the schema fully describes the input. The description adds no need for parameter explanation, achieving perfect alignment.

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 function: displaying current MCP platform and adapter versions. It is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which serve different purposes.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, its purpose is self-evident for version checks, and the sibling tools are clearly unrelated, making usage context implicit 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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying what information is returned, which goes 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and then lists the returned state components. Every phrase adds value with no repetition or filler.

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 informational tool with strong annotations, the description is fully adequate. It enumerates the return content sufficiently even without an output schema, and there are no missing usage prerequisites or side effects to disclose.

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 parameter meaning, and the schema coverage is trivially complete at 100%.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect.

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 makes the usage context clear: call this tool when you need an overview of the toolkit's current state. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the purpose is specific enough that no competing sibling tool serves the same function.

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 behavior; the description adds payment requirements, no-credential access, the non-confidential nature of the queried data, and LGPD controller responsibilities. It does not contradict annotations, but omits response/error behavior.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by operational/legal context. It is reasonably concise, though the official-source and non-confidential statements could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 paid query tool with no output schema and four optional parameters, the description fails to explain parameter usage, input formatting, expected return values, or failure/credit edge cases. It provides good legal and access context, but not enough operational completeness.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (cpf, cnpj, nome, competencia), their formats, or valid combinations. With no param guidance in the description, the agent is left to infer all parameter semantics from bare property names.

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 names the resource ('Certidão Judicial' from 'Tribunal TJTO') and the action ('consulta em fonte oficial'), clearly distinguishing it from generic system/marketplace siblings. It is not quite a 5 because it does not specify what information the certificate 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?

It gives useful operational context: the tool is platform-hosted, requires no platform credentials, and is paid per query with prepaid credit. It does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, though no close alternative exists among the listed siblings.

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