Tribunal TRT11: Certidão Eletrônica de Ações Trabalhistas (CEAT)

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it explains the permanence of the config-header approach versus session-only token paste, and mentions the need for a browser login. It does not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false) and adds useful context about the connection duration.

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, with three sentences that cover the essential flow. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then details the two methods. No unnecessary information is included, though it could be slightly more compact without losing clarity.

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 authentication tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the user action (browser login), the two authentication methods, and the calling convention. An agent has enough context to decide when and how to use this 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 provides only the parameter name 'token' with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description fully compensates by explaining the token's purpose and usage: it should be a JWT pasted by the user, and that calling with no args retrieves a link. This provides complete semantic meaning beyond the raw schema.

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: authenticating to MCP.AI for IDE agents by obtaining a login link or accepting an access token. It uses specific verbs like 'log in' and 'copy the access token,' and explains the two main flows. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'connect', which could also handle connections, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 instructions: adding a config header for permanent access or pasting a token for session-only login, and calling with no args to get the link. It gives clear context on when to use each method. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives like 'connect', so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative 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?

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the conditional return for fully connected vs. missing credentials, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not cover all edge cases (e.g., partial connections), but the provided scenarios are helpful.

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, using two sentences that are direct and information-dense. Every word earns its place, with no fluff 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?

For a simple zero-parameter tool with robust annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the main purpose and conditional behaviors, which is all an agent needs to decide when to invoke it and interpret the result.

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 complete coverage. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate since no additional information is necessary.

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 connection status and URLs, with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('connection status'). It also differentiates from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status retrieval rather than performing 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 context for when to use the tool (checking connection status and obtaining URLs when credentials are missing), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The context is sufficient though, especially given the sibling tool 'authenticate' suggests a clear division of responsibilities.

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 critical behaviors beyond annotations: invoke works without installation, returns connect/checkout links on auth/payment failures, requires owner/admin for writes, and flags installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace. Annotations only provide readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, so the description carries the full burden and does so richly.

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 and dense, covering multiple capabilities in a single block of text. It lacks structured bullet points or clear separation of the main marketplace flow vs the prompt library. While every sentence adds value, the format hampers quick scanning. Could be reorganized for better readability without losing 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?

Given the tool's complexity (23 parameters, 14 actions, multiple edge cases), the description is exceptionally complete. It covers the full discovery→invoke pipeline, install vs ephemeral execution, auth/payment fallbacks, permission requirements, and the prompt library. Even without an output schema, it describes expected return behaviors (connect link, checkout link, profile data).

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. It explains the meaning of action, query, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments (implied via invoking tools), prompt_vars ({{variables}}), and permission-related semantics. While not every one of the 23 parameters is individually described, the main workflow is well-supported, and many params (like cancel_reason, prompt_title) are self-evident from the schema.

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 the official mcp.ai marketplace for discovering and running MCPs. It enumerates specific actions (search, describe, invoke, install, etc.) and distinguishes itself by being the central hub for all marketplace operations, unlike siblings 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 gives explicit guidance on when to use each action: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', and outlines the core flow from search→describe→invoke. It also clarifies when to use the prompt library functions and specifies permission requirements for writes.

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 provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description does not add behavioral context beyond what annotations state; it doesn't explain auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens after reporting (e.g., whether the bug is stored). It also doesn't mention that idempotency might be expected. No contradiction, but minimal added value.

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 long, front-loaded with purpose, and includes a concrete usage guideline. Every word earns its place; no fluff 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?

The tool has three parameters, no output schema, and a description that covers only one parameter. The description doesn't specify whether the tool returns a confirmation, error handling, or if there are prerequisites (e.g., authentication). Given the tool's complexity (bug reporting), it lacks details on what constitutes a valid 'message' or 'context,' making it insufficient for reliable 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%, so the description must compensate. The description only explains 'conversation' as 'recent messages for reproduction,' which adds context. However, 'message' and 'context' are undefined in the description, leaving the agent guessing about their purpose. The description fails to fully compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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.' It uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('bug' or 'feedback'), and distinguishes from siblings by implying the ability to send feedback, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with marketplace or tribunal tools. The inclusion of 'missing feature' broadens the purpose but remains clear.

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 gives a clear instruction: 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' This tells the agent when to use it (for reporting issues) and provides a key guideline (include conversation). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives like 'marketplace' for feature requests, leaving some ambiguity.

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 (readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false) already disclose the key behavioral traits. The description adds slightly by specifying the exact scope ('platform and adapter' versions), but beyond that it reveals nothing about error behavior, output format, or network dependencies.

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, short sentence of eight words that is front-loaded with the verb and uses each word meaningfully. The description is as concise as possible—no filler, no 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, read-only version tool, the description is nearly sufficient. It covers the essential 'what' but stops short of mentioning what versions look like (e.g., format) or whether network calls are involved. Given the simplicity and the strong annotations, the description is mostly adequate.

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 has no parameter semantics to add. The baseline of 4 for parameterless tools applies here, as the description correctly avoids inventing 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?

Uses a clear verb ('Show') with a specific resource ('MCP platform and adapter versions'). It partially differentiates this tool from siblings like authenticate, connect, or marketplace, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The intent of retrieving version information 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?

No usage context is provided. The description does not mention when to call this tool versus alternatives such as toolkit_info or report_bug, nor does it provide exclusions. For a tool that returns version info, the description omits any guidance on when an agent should rely on 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, destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful detail: it specifies the exact return contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). It does not contradict annotations. It provides a clear, non-destructive read-only behavior, enhancing what the annotations communicate. It doesn't mention potential latency or rate limits, but for a status query that's acceptable.

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 lists all relevant information categories compactly without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Returns the current toolkit state') and then enumerates the specifics. No wasted words.

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 output schema is absent (only a generic object), the description does a good job of explaining what the return will include. For a zero-parameter tool, this is sufficient. It covers the key aspects: what the state includes and what it doesn't (actions). It could optionally mention that it reflects current connections, but the phrase 'current toolkit state' already implies that. It's complete enough for an agent to invoke without confusion.

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 there is nothing to explain. The description accurately describes the state snapshot returned, which is the only 'input' context. Since no parameters exist, the description effectively covers all input semantics. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and no further info is needed.

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 starts with 'Returns the current toolkit state' – a specific verb and resource ('toolkit state'). It 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', which handle specific actions rather than state 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 makes the tool's purpose evident: querying the current state of the toolkit. Given the sibling names (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.), this tool is clearly for orientation/inspection. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, but the clear purpose implicitly signals it is for state inspection, not for actions. Missing explicit exclusions (e.g., 'if you need to modify, use ...') but the context makes it obvious.

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 important behavioral aspects: it is a paid query, requires no platform credentials, returns non-confidential data, and includes LGPD compliance notes. This goes beyond the annotations, though it omits potential errors or rate limits.

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 moderately concise but includes redundant statements (e.g., repetition of official source, platform hosting) and could be streamlined. It is not overly verbose but not maximally efficient.

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 and two underdocumented parameters, the description fails to explain the return value or the relationship between CPF and CNPJ (e.g., required vs. optional). It leaves significant gaps for the 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'cpf' and 'cnpj' parameters at all, leaving the agent to infer their meaning. No compensation is provided for the lack of schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: querying the CEAT (Certidão Eletrônica de Ações Trabalhistas) from TRT11, an official source. It distinguishes itself from generic sibling tools and explains its paid nature.

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 context (official source, no credentials, prepaid credit) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions, limiting guidance.

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