Tribunal TRT7: Certidão Eletrônica de Ações Trabalhistas (CEAT) - Processos Digitais

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

The description discloses behavioral details beyond annotations: it explains that calling with no args returns a link, calling with a token performs session-only login, and describes the alternative of adding a config header for permanent connection. It does not contradict annotations (idempotent, non-destructive) and adds meaningful context about token handling and session vs permanent auth.

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 paragraph but front-loads the purpose and provides essential instructions. It is efficient, though slightly verbose with the 'MCP.AI for IDE agents' context and the config mention, which could be trimmed without loss of essential 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?

For an authentication tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main usage scenarios (token-provided and link-request) and the alternative config approach. It does not mention possible response formats or error cases, but given the simplicity and annotation coverage, it is sufficiently 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains the 'token' parameter as a JWT that can be pasted, clarifies that it is optional, and specifies the exact call patterns: with { token } and with no args. This adds substantial semantic meaning beyond the bare string type in 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's purpose: authentication with MCP.AI for IDE agents, explicitly mentioning login, token retrieval, and two usage modes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' by focusing on token-based authentication rather than generic 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 explicit when-to-use guidance: call with token for session login, call with no args to get a link, and recommends config-based permanent auth as an alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., if the user already has a valid token in config) or differentiate from 'connect' beyond implied context.

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 read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. Description adds concrete details about return payloads (authenticated:true, pending[], connect_url, per-install URLs), which enriches the behavioral picture beyond 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?

Two compact sentences pack all essential information. First sentence states purpose and primary return value; second explains conditional behavior. 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool, description fully explains expected outputs under both normal and degraded conditions. No output schema exists, but return values are clearly described. Context with sibling 'authenticate' implies connection lifecycle, making this sufficient.

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?

No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%, 0 params). Baseline for 0-param tools is 4 per rubric; description correctly omits parameter details since none are 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?

Description clearly states it returns connection status and URLs, specifying conditions for authenticated state and pending providers. Distinguishes from sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status retrieval rather than authentication action.

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?

Description implies usage for checking connection status and provides context on when different outputs occur (connected vs missing credentials). Does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info', but the purpose is self-evident for a status-check 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 provide only readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false; the description carries most of the burden and delivers. It discloses side effects and retry semantics ('invoke returns a connect link' for auth, 'a checkout/top-up link' for empty wallet, 'the user opens it, then you retry'), scoping ('runs the tool pontualmente... without bloating the tool list'), and permission requirements ('Writes... require workspace owner/admin'). Minor gap: uninstall's destructive effect is named in the permissions sentence but not explained. 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 ~350-word run-on paragraph — dense and front-loaded well (purpose → flow → key exception → permissions → prompt library), but no bullets, headers, or separation between the MCP-catalog and prompt-library concerns. Given 14 dispatch actions, some length is justified, yet restructuring would materially improve scannability. Every sentence earns its place, but the wall-of-text format costs it a higher score.

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 tool with 23 parameters, zero output schema, sparse annotations, and 14 dispatch actions spanning catalog discovery, execution, installation, billing, and a prompt library, this description is remarkably complete. It covers the discovery pipeline, one-off vs permanent execution, auth and payment fallbacks, owner/admin permission gates, installed-status flags, and each action's role. The only residue is a handful of underwritten parameters and no return-format details, but given the inherent complexity, this is near-ceiling completeness.

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 across 23 parameters, the description must compensate heavily. It maps most actions to their key inputs (action=invoke takes tool_id + arguments, publish_prompt uses prompt_body to return a shareable slug, search takes query, cancel takes cancel_reason, report_bug takes report_context, request_mcp takes request_name/details). However, several parameters remain unexplained: limit, immediate, conversation, message, and tier_slug are never addressed despite being significant to the search/subscribe flows.

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 a precise identity: 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It then enumerates the full action dispatcher (search, describe, invoke, install, list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, and the prompt-library trio). The scope is unambiguously differentiated from siblings like authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info — this is the discovery/running/billing gateway, not an auth or system-info tool.

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?

Exceptionally explicit when-to-use guidance. It defines the canonical flow ('action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns one MCP's full profile... so you pick the right tool_id → invoke RUNS that tool'), gives concrete query examples ('consulta um CPF', 'is there a tool for Y'), and draws a clear line between invoke (one-off, no toolkit bloat) vs install (permanent). It also separates the prompt library ('about ready-made prompt TEXT rather than MCPs') from the MCP catalog, and names list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, and request_mcp with their distinct triggers.

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?

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds the behavioral nuance that conversation data is needed for reproduction. However, it does not clarify the meaning of idempotentHint=true or mention potential side effects, so it provides only moderate additional transparency.

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 redundancy. The first states the purpose directly, the second provides essential input guidance. 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?

For a three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the expected response or the purpose of the 'context' parameter. While the core use is clear, these gaps leave the agent under-informed about the full tool contract.

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 carry the weight for parameters. It explains the 'conversation' parameter ('recent messages for reproduction') but leaves 'message' and 'context' implicit. This partial compensation justifies a middle score.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This directly differentiates it from siblings like 'authenticate' or 'marketplace', which serve entirely 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 gives concrete usage guidance by instructing to 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool, but given its unique purpose among siblings, the context is clear enough to warrant a 4.

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 covered. The description adds the context that versions are 'current,' but does not disclose return format or other behavioral details. This is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does with no wasted words. 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?

For a trivial, parameterless version-inspection tool with strong annotations, the description is complete. It identifies the tool's purpose and expected output (platform and adapter versions) sufficiently for an agent to select and 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed since the input schema 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 ('Show') and names the exact resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, 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 implies when to use the tool: whenever version information is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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 safe read-only behavior is well-covered. The description adds useful context about the scope of the returned state but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as freshness or potential overhead.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and enumerates the returned content. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 straightforward read-only information tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the agent can expect. It lists the four major categories of returned state, which is adequate for selecting and invoking the 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, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The schema coverage is effectively 100% because the schema is empty, making additional parameter explanations unnecessary.

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 the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state'). It enumerates the exact contents: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and exposed catalog tool counts, which distinguishes it from siblings like show_version or 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 does not state when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It only describes what the tool returns, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: no platform credentials needed, prepaid credit required, data is not confidential, and LGPD compliance responsibilities, which go 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 a dense run-on sentence covering purpose, payment, official source, and LGPD, with some redundancy (e.g., 'fonte oficial' repeated). It is informative but could be better structured and more concise.

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?

While the description provides payment and legal context, it lacks essential information about input requirements (which parameters to use, if any are mandatory) and the nature of the returned data. Given no output schema, this leaves the tool under-specified for an agent to invoke 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 input schema has three optional string parameters (cpf, cnpj, nome) with no descriptions, and the description does not mention them at all. It fails to explain that at least one identifier is needed, the format, or precedence if multiple are provided.

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 queries the CEAT (Certidão Eletrônica de Ações Trabalhistas) from TRT7, an official source. It distinguishes from generic sibling tools like authenticate or connect by specifying the exact court and document type.

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 mentions payment via prepaid credit and no platform credentials, providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or exclude cases, leaving the usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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