Tribunal TRF: Certidão Unificada da Justiça Federal

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

Description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: calling with no args returns a login link, passing a token performs a session login, and config-based tokens yield permanent connections. No contradiction with annotations; adds valuable context about idempotent behavior and token persistence.

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 informative but structured as a single run-on sentence with mixed instructions and colons, making it slightly less scannable than ideal. It could be broken into clear bullet points or separated steps, but every detail 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 moderate complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential use cases and setup alternatives. It provides enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it omits potential error handling or token expiration semantics.

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 token parameter is described inline with examples ({ token: "<jwt>" }) and its purpose in the flow. However, with schema coverage at 0%, more explicit explanation of the token format, validation, or optionality would have been beneficial. It meets the bare minimum.

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 handles authentication for MCP.AI IDE agents, with a specific login flow (browser, copy token) and distinct modes (permanent header vs session token). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, 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?

Provides clear instructions on when to use which invocation: add token to config for permanent access, pass token for session login, or call with no args to receive a link. It stops short of explicitly stating when NOT to use or naming alternatives, but context is strong.

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 details beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, such as the expected response format (authenticated flag, pending array, connect URLs) and conditional behavior. It is consistent with the annotations and enriches understanding of side effects.

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, using only two sentences to convey the core functionality and conditional outcomes. It avoids unnecessary fluff and is well-structured.

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 carries the burden of explaining the return values. It covers the main scenarios (all connected vs. missing credentials) and provides concrete examples of returned fields. However, it could mention error cases or other possible states, but for the low complexity, it is adequately 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 no parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively 100% (empty properties). The description does not need to clarify parameters, so the baseline score of 3 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: returning connection status and URLs. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or '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 description does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides some contextual detail (e.g., what happens when credentials are missing) but fails to guide the agent on selecting this tool over others.

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 annotations (readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses several non-obvious behaviors: invoke runs even when the MCP is not installed, does not bloat the tool list, returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment, and that writes require workspace owner/admin. It also clarifies that list_tools lists what is callable right now, adding 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?

The description is a single dense paragraph covering many actions, permissions, fallbacks, and prompt-library details. While every sentence adds value, the lack of bullet points or section breaks makes it hard to parse quickly. It is informative but could be better structured for an AI agent to absorb.

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 (14 actions, 23 params, no output schema), the description is remarkably thorough: it covers the core flow, permissions, auth/payment fallbacks, and the distinction between MCP tools and prompt library. It does not explain return values or error cases, but given the lack of output schema and the breadth of behavior covered, it is close to 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?

With 23 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the action enum and core flow (action=search, describe, invoke, etc.) and implicitly references parameters like mcp_id, tool_id, and arguments. However, many parameters (limit, immediate, tier_slug, conversation, request_details, prompt_targets, etc.) remain undocumented in both schema and description. The coverage is partial, not complete.

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' and explains its dual role as catalog and execution engine for MCPs. It lists specific actions (search, describe, invoke, install) and distinguishes the prompt library section, making it distinct from sibling tools like authenticate and report_bug.

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 explicitly states when to use invoke vs install: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'. It also mentions that writes require workspace owner/admin and describes the core flow search → describe → invoke. This gives clear selection criteria and 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?

The description does not disclose side effects, such as whether a ticket is created, whether confirmation is given, or any rate limits or authentication requirements. Annotations indicate it is a write operation (not read-only) but not destructive or idempotent, yet the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the action itself.

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, consisting of two clear sentences with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the core action and the key instruction about including the conversation array.

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 bug-report tool, the description is adequately complete. It states the action and mentions the reproduction context. It does not explain return values (but no output schema exists) or prerequisites like authentication, which are implicitly handled by sibling tools. Overall, it provides sufficient context for its straightforward 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 description explains the 'conversation' parameter ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'), but does not clarify 'message' or 'context'. Since the schema has no parameter descriptions, the description covers only about one-third of the parameters, which is below the 50% threshold for compensation.

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: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which serve 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?

The description implies usage when a bug, missing feature, or feedback needs to be submitted. It provides clear situational context ('Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback') though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds little beyond the annotations, but it does clarify that versions are current, which is a minor addition. No contradiction exists.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core function and is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 trivial: no output schema, no parameters, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description is complete for its purpose, providing all necessary information to 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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info because none exist, and the schema is complete. This is acceptable for a zero-parameter 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 shows current MCP platform and adapter versions, with a specific verb (show) and resource (versions). It is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which serve 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?

The description is straightforward but does not explicitly state when to use this tool or mention alternatives. However, given the distinct purpose and lack of overlapping siblings, the context is implied but not articulated to the level of explicit 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 disclose readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by specifying exactly what state is returned, including connection status and per-account details, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions exist.

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 front-loaded with the primary action and then lists the key data points. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy 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?

The tool has no parameters, no output schema, and its safety profile is fully covered by annotations. The description adequately explains what the tool returns, making it complete for an informational tool. The sibling context reinforces its role as the state-inspection 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter details to clarify. The description instead enriches understanding of the output, which is appropriate for a no-input tool. The baseline of 4 is suitable.

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 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource as 'current toolkit state', enumerating the exact components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which perform actions rather than report state.

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 context: it is a read-only informational tool to inspect toolkit state. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, the contrast with sibling tools like connect and authenticate makes its role clear. It provides clear context but no explicit 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 provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which cover safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: no platform credentials needed, pay-per-query with prepaid credit, data is non-confidential, and LGPD compliance responsibilities. This goes beyond the annotation baseline.

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 block of two to three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then covering operational details. It avoids irrelevant fluff and is structured logically. The legal note about LGPD is concise and relevant. Slightly dense, but acceptable.

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 5 parameters, requires 2, and has no output schema. The description fails to explain the meaning of parameters, expected input formats, or what the return value will look like. It covers payment and legal aspects but omits crucial operational details needed for correct invocation, especially given the lack of schema 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%, and the description does not explain any parameter semantics. It does not clarify what 'tipo', 'email', 'cpf', 'cnpj', or 'nome_social' mean, nor the valid values for 'tipo'. With no schema descriptions and no explanation in the text, the agent has no guidance on how to correctly populate these parameters.

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 what the tool does: 'Certidão Unificada da Justiça Federal, consulta em fonte oficial' – it retrieves a unified federal court certificate from an official source. The verb 'consulta' indicates a read operation, and the resource is specific, distinguishing it from unrelated sibling tools like 'authenticate' 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 implies when to use the tool (when needing the unified certificate) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It mentions the data is public ('não é dado sigiloso') and that payment via prepaid credit is required, but no explicit 'use this when...' or 'instead of X' guidance. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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