Tribunal TRT7: Certidão Eletrônica de Ações Trabalhistas (CEAT)

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

Even though annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the browser login flow, the difference between permanent config-based auth and session-only token auth, and the link generation behavior. It does not contradict 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?

The description is compact and front-loads the key idea, but the phrasing is a bit dense and mixes configuration advice, direct invocation, and session behavior in a single flow. Overall it remains readable and each part contributes useful guidance.

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?

Despite having no output schema and minimal annotation detail, the description covers the main invocation paths and the expected login-link output. It could be even stronger by stating the result of passing a valid token and handling edge cases, but for a one-optional-parameter authentication tool it is reasonably 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 schema only lists 'token' as a string with no description and no required flag help, but the description fully compensates: it explains that token is optional, expects a JWT, should be passed via { token: "<jwt>" }, and that omitting it returns the login link. This is strong semantic 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 identifies authentication/login as the purpose and explains the browser-token flow, so it is not a tautology. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'connect', which could also relate to establishing a 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?

It gives explicit actionable scenarios: add the token to config for permanent login, paste it for session-only login, call with the token object after the user pastes, or call with no args to get the link. This makes it obvious when and how to invoke the tool.

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, destructiveHint false, and idempotentHint true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by explaining the two return states (authenticated true vs connect_url) and per-install URLs, which is useful context beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then detailing conditional returns. Every sentence adds value 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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behaviors: what returns when all providers are connected and what happens when credentials are missing. It is adequate for an agent to use the tool effectively, though it doesn't detail URL formats or error cases.

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 is fully covered (100%). Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to explain parameters, and the two-sentence explanation of behavior is sufficient.

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, and differentiates from siblings by specifying two distinct outcomes (authenticated vs missing credentials). It uses a specific verb ('Returns') with a clear resource, distinguishing it from 'authenticate' or other tools.

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 for checking connection status, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like 'authenticate'. It lacks explicit when/when-not guidance, but the purpose is clear enough for basic selection.

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?

Rich behavioral disclosure beyond annotations: 'invoke works even when the MCP is NOT installed — it runs the tool pontualmente (one-off), without adding the MCP to the toolkit and without bloating the tool list'; write operations 'require workspace owner/admin'; and auth/billing edge cases are disclosed (connect link, checkout/top-up link). This adds meaningful context on side effects and permissions on top of readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true. 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?

This is a dense wall of text with no structural aids — no bullets, no sectioning, no front-loading of the most critical decisions (install vs invoke is buried mid-paragraph). Every sentence is informative, but the lack of scannable structure makes it hard for an agent to quickly extract the key branching logic. For a description this long, formatting would dramatically improve 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 extreme complexity (14 actions, 23 params, no output schema), the description covers the main flows thoroughly — search→describe→invoke, install-for-permanence, the prompt library, and auth/billing edge cases. But gaps remain: the 'resume' action is never mentioned, search/list_tools return formats are undefined, and the toolkit vs workspace installed distinction is only briefly flagged. Adequate but not complete for a tool of this scope.

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 carries the full burden, and it partially delivers: the action enum values are explained in detail (search/describe/install/invoke etc.), plus tool_id/arguments and prompt variables are contextually described. However, many of the 23 parameters are never explained — immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason/cancel_comment, prompt_targets, conversation, request_name, report_context, limit, query — leaving significant semantic gaps for an agent.

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 is — 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It identifies the resource (catalog) and the core action flow (search → describe → invoke). However, it loses a point because it is a mega-tool with 14 distinct actions (search, describe, install, invoke, subscribe, search_prompts, etc.) folded into one definition, so the purpose is clear but not singular or tightly scoped.

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?

Strong within-tool guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' vs 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit', plus the search/describe/invoke pipeline is spelled out. It also explains conditional behavior (connect link for credentials, checkout link for empty wallet). It does not, however, contrast with sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or toolkit_info, so cross-tool exclusion guidance is missing.

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 idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false, so the low bar is met. The description adds the insight that this is a reporting/feedback channel and that conversation data is used for reproduction, but it does not disclose external side effects, persistence, or response behavior beyond what the annotations imply.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no redundant filler. Every clause contributes either to the tool's purpose or to a key usage 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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate, but it omits what the 'context' field is for and does not clarify the expected result of reporting. The conversation type ambiguity also prevents it from being fully unambiguous.

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 needs to compensate, but it only partially addresses one parameter ('conversation'). 'message' and 'context' are not explained. Worse, it calls the conversation an 'array' while the schema declares a string type defaulting to '[]', which is potentially misleading for an agent deciding how to serialize the 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 uses a specific verb ('report') and clearly identifies the targets: bug, missing feature, and feedback. This makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious and distinguishes it from unrelated sibling tools such as authenticate, show_version, and 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?

The description states exactly what kind of input the tool is used for and instructs the user to include the conversation array for reproduction. No sibling tool offers overlapping functionality, so explicit exclusions are unnecessary; the 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this — it states what it shows but not, for example, that it performs no network calls or requires no auth. Given a zero-parameter info tool with strong annotation coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Show.' No filler, no repetition of what annotations already state. Appropriately sized for the simplicity of the operation.

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, read-only, idempotent informational tool with no output schema, the description 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions' is nearly complete. It clarifies what is shown (platform + adapter versions), which is all an agent needs to select and invoke this tool. Slight room to detail the return format, but not required at this 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?

The tool has zero parameters Frances, so the description needs no parameter elaboration. Baseline 4 applies for 0-parameter tools. There is nothing to clarify for the agent.

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 ('Show') plus a well-defined resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It clearly distinguishes from all siblings — none of which provide version information — and precisely states what the tool returns.

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 tool's purpose is self-evident as a version-check utility diagnostic. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions, but for a zero-param informational tool, the usage context is implied by its nature. No competing sibling performs this function, so differentiation isn't strictly necessary.

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, covering safety semantics. The description adds value by specifying what is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which is not repetitive. No contradiction exists 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, well-structured sentence that lists all returned information without extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it immediately comprehensible.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description adequately specifies the tool's return content. It could optionally mention that it is a read-only operation, but that is already covered by annotations, so the description is complete for practical purposes.

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 correctly does not attempt to explain parameter usage. The baseline for no parameters is 4, as there is nothing to add beyond the schema (which is empty and fully covered).

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 explicitly names the resource 'toolkit state' with details on what it contains (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tools). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which focus on actions.

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 implicitly indicates this is for retrieval of toolkit state, and its context (installed MCPs, statuses, etc.) implies it's the go-to for overview information. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but given siblings, the purpose is clear enough to avoid confusion.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with via 'consulta' and adds no contradiction. The description enriches the picture by disclosing cost implications ('pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago'), hosting specifics ('Hospedado pela plataforma, sem credenciais da plataforma'), and legal/data-handling context ('O cliente é o controlador dos dados e responde pela finalidade legítima (LGPD)'), which are not available in structured form.

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 crams purpose, hosting, billing, data source claims, and legal responsibilities into four dense sentences, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence. While every sentence adds some value, the structure is a run-on paragraph that mixes unrelated concerns (cost, LGPD, hosting) and could be better separated for consumption despite being information-rich.

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 with three params, no output schema, and no annotations on return values, the description compensates well by covering commercial, legal, and data-origin context. However, it omits any insight into the response structure, parameter usage, or error handling, leaving a noticeable gap in what a complete tool description should specify for an agent to invoke it fully.

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 input schema defines three string parameters (cpf, cnpj, nome) with 0% description coverage, and the description provides zero explanation for any of them. Since none of the parameters are required and the description doesn't clarify which identifier is needed or acceptable combinations, an agent cannot reliably determine required arguments, though the names are self-evident in the Brazilian context.

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 a query for the 'Certidão Eletrônica de Ações Trabalhistas (CEAT)' from 'Tribunal TRT7', specifying a particular verb ('consulta') and resource. It specifies the tool is a read operation on an official Brazilian source, and the context properly differentiates it from the sibling tools like 'authenticate' and 'connect' by describing a specific domain query. The purpose is unmistakable even with the dense language.

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 by emphasizing content is from 'fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros (a mesma disponível ao cidadão), não é dado sigiloso', indicating when this is appropriate for public-data queries and LGPD compliance. However, it lacks explicit with-exclusion statements, alternatives, and prerequisites, so an agent would not have clear guidance on when NOT to use this tool vs. alternatives.

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