Tribunal TRF1: Certidão Negativa Cível e Criminal

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

Although annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description provides meaningful context by explaining that the token can be non-expiring via config or session-only when passed directly. It does not contradict annotations. The token-handling flow is clearly explained, exceeding what the annotations alone would communicate.

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 three sentences that pack in significant detail about both permanent and session-based authentication, implementation guidance for IDE agents, and parameter usage. It is information-dense but stays relevant. Slight deduction for density; the mention of 'MCP.AI for IDE agents' could be seen as extra context, but it is relevant for the agent audience.

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 relative simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description does a good job covering the main user flow, configuration integration, and session fallback. It doesn't mention error handling or token security specifics, but for this scope the description is near-complete. An output schema would be a bonus but isn't necessary for this tool's purpose.

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 specifies a string `token` with no description, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. The description does explain that `token` is the '<jwt>' to paste, which adds semantic meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on expected format or edge cases; baseline 3 is appropriate given the low schema 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 explicitly states the tool's action: log in via browser and copy the access token, with a clear instruction as to what argument to pass. It also clearly positions itself among sibling tools like `connect` and `marketplace`, distinguishing its purpose as authentication.

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 when-to-use guidance by explaining both configuration-based authorization (via config header) and session-based login (passing the token), plus the option to call with no args. It specifically tells agents to call with {token: '<jwt>'} after the user pastes, giving an explicit alternative path.

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 annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), the description discloses two concrete behaviors: all-connected returns authenticated:true and empty pending[], while missing credentials returns connect_url and per-install URLs. This adds meaningful conditional context without contradicting 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no filler. The conditional branches are packed efficiently without redundancy.

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 parameterless status-checking tool, the description covers the main success case and the missing-credentials case, specifying key fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url). It could mention partial-connectivity behavior or error conditions, but overall it is sufficiently complete given the low 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 input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description supports this by addressing only output/state behavior, matching the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 a specific verb-resource pair: 'Returns connection status and URLs.' It further specifies two conditional outcomes (authenticated:true with empty pending[] vs connect_url plus per-install URLs), clarifying the scope and distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate, which perform auth instead of status 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 description implies use when connection status or connection URLs are needed and details conditional responses, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this over authenticate or states exclusions. It provides context but no direct alternative 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?

The description transparently discloses side effects and operational nuances: invoke works even without installation, credential and payment flows return connect/checkout links, and writes require owner/admin. It also explains the prompt library's purpose, going well beyond the sparse 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 lengthy but well-organized with clear sections for core flow, key behavior, writes, and prompt library. Some redundancy and dense phrasing exist, but the length is justified given the tool's multi-action nature.

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, the description covers the main workflows, auth/billing implications, permission requirements, and the additional prompt library. No output schema exists, so the absence of return-value details is acceptable; the description is sufficiently complete for agent decision-making.

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 schema descriptions, the description compensates by explaining the meaning of many parameters via action names, tool_id, arguments, prompt fields, and billing-related fields. However, a few parameters like immediate, tier_slug, and conversation are not explicitly clarified, leaving some ambiguity.

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 defines the tool as the official mcp.ai marketplace and explains its core actions (search, describe, invoke) and secondary capabilities (install, subscribe, prompts). It distinguishes the tool's scope from sibling tools by covering the full marketplace workflow.

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 when-to-use guidance: prefer invoke for one-off runs, use install for permanent toolkit additions, list_tools for current availability, and request_mcp when nothing fits. It also notes permission requirements for writes, which is essential for correct routing.

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?

No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true). It adds the reproduction context, but does not disclose side effects, external transmission, or authentication needs; the annotations carry some of the safety profile.

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 precise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and an actionable instruction. No filler or redundant content.

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 three-string-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the key reproduction requirement. It could be more complete by explaining the required message parameter and the optional context parameter.

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 explains conversation's role for reproduction, but leaves message and context semantics undefined, and there are no parameter-level descriptions.

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?

States 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback' – a specific verb and resource. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like authenticate, marketplace, and tribunal_trf1_certidao_consultar.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (bug, missing feature, feedback) and instructs to include the conversation array for reproduction. It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tools are obviously unrelated.

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 no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as return format or network dependencies, but it does not contradict them.

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, front-loaded with the action 'Show', and contains no extraneous words. It is maximally concise while fully stating the tool's function.

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 this is a zero-parameter, read-only version check with no output schema, the description adequately covers everything the agent needs to know: it retrieves the current platform and adapter versions. The strong annotations eliminate the need for safety disclaimers, making the tool's context 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 takes zero parameters, so the description needs no parameter-level information. Per the baseline rule for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the schema and description align trivially.

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 specific verb 'Show' and identifies exact resource 'current MCP platform and adapter versions', clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like authenticate or report_bug. It conveys a precise purpose without ambiguity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as toolkit_info, which could also provide environment information. The description relies entirely on the tool's name to imply use case, providing no explicit context 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying what 'state' includes (MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), going beyond a mere 'returns info' statement. 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?

A single well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the four specific data components. No filler, redundancy, or unnecessary clauses.

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, zero-output-schema tool with strong annotations, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what the tool returns. There are no hidden inputs or output expectations to clarify, so the description 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics since there are none, and the schema is empty anyway.

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') with a clear resource ('current toolkit state') and enumerates the exact components: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect, authenticate, and show_version.

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 usage context is implied: it is a read-only state inspection tool, useful when an agent needs an overview of the toolkit's MCP connections and accounts. However, it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives or mention exclusions, so it falls at the 'implied usage' level.

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 description adds extra value by disclosing hosting details, payment requirements (prepaid credit), and data sensitivity (not confidential) plus LGPD compliance. 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 a concise paragraph in Portuguese, front-loaded with purpose and then adds constraints. It is efficient with words, though the sentences could be slightly more compact. It avoids unnecessary 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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should provide parameter details and some indication of the result format. It only describes the domain (official source, LGPD) and payment, but lacks essential parameter semantics and output behavior, leaving the agent underequipped for correct invocation.

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 five parameters (cpf, cnpj, tipo, orgao, considera_filiais). It only vaguely references 'Certidão Negativa Cível e Criminal' which might relate to 'tipo' but offers no concrete meaning for any 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 a specific verb (consulta) and resource (Certidão Negativa Cível e Criminal do Tribunal TRF1) from an official source. It uniquely identifies what the tool does and is not confused with the generic 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?

Provides context about when to use it: for official Brazilian sources, requires prepaid credit, not confidential data, and the client's LGPD responsibilities. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives but implies its usage for certificate queries, which is sufficient given that siblings are unrelated.

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