Tribunal TRF5: Processo

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

Annotations say idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description explains that a token can be provided for permanent connection vs session-only, and that it returns a link if called without args. This adds context beyond annotations, though it doesn't explicitly state side effects like token storage or security implications.

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, well-structured, and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It conveys essential information in two sentences, avoiding 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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers all usage modes, setup, and fallback behavior. Annotations already indicate idempotency, so no further disclosure 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?

Schema has one optional 'token' parameter with no description. The description explains that token is a JWT pasted by the user for session-only login, and that calling without args returns the link. This adds meaning to the parameter, compensating for 0% schema description 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 purpose: authenticate to MCP.AI for IDE agents, with a specific flow (login in browser, copy token). It distinguishes from sibling tools like connect and marketplace by focusing on authentication 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?

Provides explicit usage instructions: how to set up permanent connection via config header, or session-only login by pasting token, or calling with no args to get link. It also implies when to use this tool (for authentication) vs alternatives (like connect for general connection).

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 value by disclosing concrete behavioral details: it returns 'authenticated:true' and empty 'pending[]' when all providers are connected, and returns 'connect_url' when credentials are missing. It does not repeat annotations. Slight credit reduction because it doesn't mention rate limits, caching, or latency behavior, but it goes beyond the annotations meaningfully.

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. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the general behavior, the second explains the conditional logic. It is concise, structured, and easy to parse.

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 no-parameter status tool with idempotent and read-only hints, the description covers the essential behavior and edge cases (all connected vs missing credentials). No output schema is present, so the description of the response fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url) is sufficient for an agent to use the result. The complexity is low, and the description fully covers it.

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 parameters and 100% schema coverage, there are no parameters to document. The description compensates appropriately by clarifying the response semantics, which is the main source of ambiguity for a no-arg tool. The baseline of 4 is appropriate given the schema is fully covered and the description adds contextual behavior.

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, including specific fields like authenticated and pending, and distinguishes behavior when all providers are connected vs missing credentials. It is distinct from sibling tools, which cover authentication, marketplace, version info, and 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 usage as a read-only health/status check and distinguishes when it returns connect_url versus empty pending[]. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the clear read-only status semantics and sibling tool names (authenticate, toolkit_info) make the intended context clear.

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 substantial behavioral context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true, idempotentHint false, destructiveHint false). Key disclosures: invoke 'runs the tool pontualmente (one-off), without adding the MCP to the toolkit and without bloating the tool list'; auth/payment fallbacks ('returns a connect link', 'returns a checkout/top-up link... then you retry'); permission requirements ('Writes... require workspace owner/admin'); installed-state flags; and the login-free prompt link behavior. No contradiction with annotations — readOnlyHint: false is consistent with documented install/uninstall/subscribe writes.

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?

Front-loaded well with the core search→describe→invoke flow, and every sentence earns its place given the tool's enormous 14-action scope. However, the entire text is one dense, unbroken paragraph with no bullet points, section breaks, or action-grouping — a parsing burden for an agent. The content is efficient, but the format could be significantly improved for a tool with this many subsections and sub-actions.

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 unusually complex dispatcher (23 params, 14 actions, 2 sub-systems, no output schema, no param descriptions), the description is remarkably complete: it covers the one-off invoke semantics, connect/checkout retry flows, permission tiers, installed-state flags, and the prompt library. Gaps remain: `resume`/`immediate`/`limit`/`tier_slug` semantics, return-format expectations (no output schema), and full detail of several prompt_* params. Since there is no output schema, the description might have done more to describe return shapes, but overall it is strong for the complexity level.

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 carries the full burden and does most of the work: it explains the crucial `action` enum (all 14 values either named or implied — only `resume` is unmentioned), plus mcp_id ('describe returns one MCP's full profile'), tool_id ('so you pick the right tool_id'), arguments (implied via 'invoke RUNS that tool'), query, request_*, cancel_*, and the prompt_* family (prompt_body/prompt_slug/prompt_vars). It still leaves gaps: `limit`, `immediate`, `tier_slug`, `message`, `conversation`, `prompt_tool`, `prompt_targets`, `prompt_category`, `prompt_description`, and the `arguments` JSON format are not addressed.

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 precisely defines the tool's role: 'the official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It enumerates every sub-action (search, describe, install, invoke, etc.) and outlines the core flow 'action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns one MCP's full profile → invoke RUNS that tool.' This goes well beyond the generic name 'marketplace' to establish a specific dispatch tool with multiple verbs and resources.

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?

Excellent internal guidance: 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' sets explicit when-to-use rules between two overlapping actions. It explains list_tools ('lists what is callable right now'), request_mcp ('build a NEW MCP when nothing fits'), the full search→describe→invoke workflow, and the distinct prompt-library sub-flow (search_prompts/get_prompt/publish_prompt). The only gap is not contrasting with sibling tools like authenticate/connect, but within its own 14-action surface the guidance is thorough.

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 that this is not read-only and not destructive, and the description adds the reproduction requirement of including conversation data. However, it does not disclose what happens to the report after submission, whether sensitive data is transmitted, or what response the caller should expect.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no redundant wording. Each sentence provides a useful part of the usage model: the tool's purpose and the key reproduction requirement.

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 with three flat, string parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and the most important call detail. The main shortfall is not missing broad context but absent parameter-level documentation.

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 is responsible for clarifying parameters. It only hints at the conversation property, referring to it as an array even though the schema types it as a string; it does not explain the message property's format or the context property's purpose.

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 ('Report') and clearly enumerates the covered scopes: bug, missing feature, and feedback. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, marketplace, or tribunal_trf5_processo_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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool and instructs the agent to include the conversation array for reproduction. It does not name explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, though the sibling tools make the differentiation straightforward.

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 annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Show' aligns with these. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations, but there is little else to disclose for a read-only version retrieval operation.

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 states the action and the subject with no filler or redundancy. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations), the description fully covers what the tool does. It provides sufficient information for an agent to select and invoke it correctly without ambiguity.

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 schema provides full coverage by definition. The description needs no additional parameter explanation, aligning with the baseline of 4 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Show' and names the exact resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'), making the tool's function unmistakable. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like 'authenticate', 'marketplace', and 'report_bug' which serve entirely 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or alternative recommendations are mentioned. For a simple version-check tool, usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive properties. The description adds context about the returned data structure, which is useful. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional detail about the tool's output.

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 lists exactly what the tool returns. There is no extraneous information or 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description must convey what the tool returns. It does so comprehensively by enumerating the components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This is complete for a status-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?

There are no parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. The schema coverage is 100% (empty params), and the description is fully adequate for a parameterless tool.

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: it returns the current toolkit state, listing installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like show_version or 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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does, without mentioning conditions, fallback scenarios, or comparisons to related tools (e.g., show_version, marketplace).

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, destructiveHint:false. The description adds meaningful operational context: payment model (prepaid credit), data classification (official, non-confidential), and LGPD data controller responsibility. 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 single efficient paragraph, front-loaded with purpose, but includes legal boilerplate about LGPD and data control. This is acceptable conciseness, though the legal disclaimer adds some length without affecting usability.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It lacks input guidance (e.g., which parameters are required, combos), expected output format, and error handling. The operational context helps but does not compensate for the missing invocation details.

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 provides zero explanation for the 7 parameters (cpf, oab, cnpj, oab_uf, processo, originario, parte_advogado). While some names are domain-specific, the description fails to clarify their meaning, required combinations, or usage, leaving the agent without adequate guidance for invocation.

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: 'Tribunal TRF5: Processo, consulta em fonte oficial' – a specific action (consult process) on a specific resource (TRF5 court). It distinguishes itself from the generic sibling tools (e.g., authenticate, show_version) 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 provides context: hosted on platform, prepaid credit, official source, LGPD responsibility. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor provides exclusion criteria. The usage is implied (for TRF5 process consultation) but no clear guidance on alternatives or conditions.

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