Tribunal TRT17: Certidão Eletrônica de Ações Trabalhistas (CEAT)

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context on token lifetime (non-expiring vs session-only) and the configuration approach, which goes beyond what annotations offer. 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?

Three sentences deliver all necessary information: context, permanent configuration, session login, and no-arg behavior. No redundant words; every clause contributes to understanding.

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?

Covers both invocation modes and setup instructions comprehensively for an authentication tool. It lacks explicit details about return values or error cases, but given the absence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 only one parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining the 'token' parameter is a JWT, how to call with it, and that omitting it returns the login link. This clarifies 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 its purpose: authenticating MCP.AI for IDE agents. It specifies the resource (access token) and the action (log in, copy token), and explains the two usage modes. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'connect' which might be a different kind of connection.

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 context: intended for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.) and gives explicit instructions for permanent (config header) vs session-only (token) usage. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the decision between permanent and session is a strong usage guideline.

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 and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about the response shape (authenticated flag, pending array, connect_url) and the conditions under which each appears, going beyond annotation basics without contradicting 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by conditional details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral states (all connected vs. missing credentials) and gives the response structure. It leaves out partial connectivity scenarios but is sufficiently complete for a simple status 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 0 parameters, so per guidelines the baseline is 4. There is nothing to describe beyond what the schema (empty) shows, and the description adds no parameter-related info, which is acceptable given zero params.

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, which is a specific verb+resource pair. It distinguishes from siblings like authenticate (which establishes connections) and show_version (version info) by focusing on status retrieval.

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 conditional behavior (all providers connected vs. missing credentials) but does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives like authenticate. Usage is implied but not contrasted with siblings.

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?

Discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: invoke runs one-off even without installation, credential/payment failures return connect/checkout links, and writes require workspace owner/admin. It also explains that install makes MCPs permanent and that search/describe flag installation status, adding valuable context on side effects and permissions.

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 long but every sentence carries unique information, organized around a clear core flow with the prompt library section separated. It uses arrows and transitions effectively, though bullet points would improve scannability for such a complex tool.

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 23-parameter, multi-action tool with no output schema, the description covers primary workflows, permissions, auth/payment edge cases, and the prompt library. It omits explicit return formats and some action-specific parameters, but the overall context is robust enough to guide correct selection and 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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description explains the central `action` parameter and many key parameters (mcp_id, tool_id, query, prompt_body, prompt_slug, prompt_vars). It does not cover parameters like `limit`, `immediate`, `tier_slug`, or the `arguments` format, but the described semantics are sufficient for the main workflows.

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, covering both catalog discovery and execution of MCPs via a defined core flow (search → describe → invoke). It also distinguishes the separate prompt library, making the tool's broad role unambiguous despite not being a simple verb+resource.

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 guidance on when to use each action: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', 'list_tools lists what is callable right now', and 'request_mcp asks us to build a NEW MCP when nothing fits'. It also states permission requirements for writes, giving clear when-to and when-not-to 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?

Annotations already provide safety hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description does not contradict them. The description adds context that the conversation array is used for reproduction, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose side effects, confirmation behavior, or any rate limits, so it adds only modest value 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains zero unnecessary words. The second sentence provides a targeted, actionable tip about the conversation array. This is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations and schema are fairly complete. It states the purpose, indicates the key parameter to include, and the schema provides required and optional fields. It lacks explicit guidance on the 'context' parameter, but the tool is simple enough that the missing detail is unlikely to cause major misuse.

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 by explaining parameters. It only explains the 'conversation' parameter (needed for reproduction), while 'message' and 'context' receive no explicit explanation. 'message' can be inferred from the tool's purpose, but 'context' is completely vague, leaving the agent without enough meaning to reliably populate all 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 uses a clear verb ('Report') with specific resources ('a bug, missing feature, or send feedback'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like authenticate, marketplace, and show_version, which serve unrelated 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 the tool should be used when a user wants to report a bug or provide feedback, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives or when not to use it. The instruction to 'Include the conversation array' is a how-to detail, not a usage guideline. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.

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 accurately reflects the read-only behavior, consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not add extra behavioral detail (e.g., no side effects, no permissions), but given the simple nature of the action, the annotation covers the key transparency aspect.

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 fully captures the tool's purpose with no redundant words or structural complexity.

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 absence of parameters and the straightforward nature of the action, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. No additional details about return values or side effects are necessary.

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 baseline for such cases is 4. No parameter descriptions are needed, and the description does not imply any hidden 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 verb 'Show' clearly indicates a read-only informational action, and the resource is precisely specified as 'current MCP platform and adapter versions'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'toolkit_info' which might cover broader details.

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 states what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'toolkit_info'. However, the purpose is simple enough that usage is likely obvious without further instruction.

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 non-destructive behavior<!-- yet the description adds what state is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts), providing behavioral context beyond the flags. No contradiction found.

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, dense sentence conveys all essential information without redundancy. It front-loads the action and lists distinct data points efficiently.

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 description provides a clear list of what the toolkit state includes, which is sufficient for a read-only informational tool. It lacks mention of output format or potential sizes, but given no output schema and simple purpose, 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?

There are no parameters, so the description needs no parameter explanations. Baseline for zero params is 4, but the description adds value by specifying the return content, which effectively compensates for any lack of param info.

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 resource ('toolkit state'), then enumerates precise contents (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like connect or authenticate 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 as a status-checking tool for overviewing the toolkit. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's purpose is self-evident and siblings are action-oriented, so context is 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?

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing the prepaid-credit requirement, lack of platform credentials, official-source nature, and LGPD data-controller responsibility, without contradicting 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?

Three front-loaded sentences: purpose, payment/credentials, and data-governance context. No filler; each sentence adds distinct information.

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 description covers purpose, source, payment, and legal context, and annotations cover safety. However, with no output schema and no parameter guidance, an agent cannot tell whether CPF, CNPJ, or name is sufficient or how results are returned.

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 3 parameters (cpf, cnpj, nome_completo) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description never mentions them or their required combinations. It fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 opens with 'Tribunal TRT17: Certidão Eletrônica de Ações Trabalhistas (CEAT), consulta em fonte oficial,' naming the specific court, document type, and action. This clearly distinguishes it from generic 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?

It explains the payment model ('pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago') and that no platform credentials are needed, giving clear operational context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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