Tribunal TRT9: Certidão Eletrônica de Ações Trabalhistas (CEAT)

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

The description discloses key behavioral aspects: it requires user interaction in a browser, the token can be provided via config for a non-expiring connection or via argument for a session-only login, and calling with no args returns a link. This goes beyond the annotations (which only indicate idempotentHint=true and non-destructive), adding valuable context about the authentication flow and token persistence. It doesn't contradict 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 concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first. It uses a single paragraph with clear instructions and alternatives. It's slightly dense but every sentence adds value. The structure is logical: purpose, recommended method, alternative method, and call syntax. 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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the authentication flow, the two modes, and how to invoke the tool. It doesn't describe the return value, but since there's no output schema, that's acceptable. It could mention what happens after successful authentication (e.g., confirmation message), but overall it's sufficient for an agent to use 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 one optional parameter 'token' with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that the token is a JWT to be pasted for session-only login, and that calling without args returns a link. This adds meaning beyond the schema, but it doesn't provide detailed format or validation rules. Given the low coverage, the description does a decent job, but could be more explicit about the token format.

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: to authenticate the MCP server for IDE agents by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes between two usage modes (permanent via config header, session-only via token argument) and explicitly mentions the target audience (IDE agents like Cursor), which differentiates it from sibling tools like connect 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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it explains the recommended approach (adding the token to the server config for a permanent connection) and the alternative (pasting the token for a session-only login). It also specifies how to call the tool with or without arguments, covering both scenarios. This is clear and actionable, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is sufficient.

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, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds scenario-specific behavioral detail (return values under different connection states), which is useful 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, and efficiently covers the two relevant states without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 read-only status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return behavior in both scenarios. There are no significant gaps in information.

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 schema is trivially complete and the description appropriately focuses on output behavior rather than 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 it returns connection status and URLs, and explains two conditional outcomes (authenticated with empty pending vs missing credentials with connect_url). This distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, which initiates authentication rather than reporting status.

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 context on when each output occurs (all providers connected vs missing credentials), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like authenticate. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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 only flag readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, etc., but the description adds crucial behavior: invoke works even when MCP is not installed, returns connect/checkout links, modifies toolkit state on install/uninstall, and requires owner/admin for writes. It does not contradict annotations and fully discloses side effects and operational expectations.

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 densely packed and logically organized: high-level purpose, core flow, key invoke/install distinction, other actions, and prompt library. Every sentence adds value, but the single-paragraph format could benefit from bullet points or clearer separation of sections. For the complexity (14 actions), the length is justified but could be tighter.

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 params, 14 actions, no output schema), the description covers the major aspects: usage flows, side effects, auth, billing, and prompt library. However, it does not explicitly state what each action returns (e.g., search output format, invoke response), which would be expected in the absence of an output schema. Overall, it is nearly complete but slightly short on return-value details.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the key 'action' parameter and how parameters like mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, and tier_slug fit the core flow, plus prompt-related params (prompt_slug, prompt_vars). While not every one of the 23 parameters is individually detailed, the description provides enough context to disambiguate primary use cases, leaving some minor gaps.

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, encompassing both catalog discovery and execution. It explicitly states the core flow (search→describe→invoke), distinguishes between one-off invocation and permanent installation, and names distinct sub-features like the prompt library. Verb+resource (marketplace catalog and runner) is specific and differentiates from all sibling 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use', 'use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT', and explains when list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, and prompt library actions are appropriate. Also states auth requirements for writes. This exactly matches the intent of usage guidelines.

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 the behavioral requirement that the conversation array should be included for reproduction, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose what happens after reporting, whether data is transmitted externally, or any side effects. Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so there is no contradiction, but the description adds limited behavioral 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, direct sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds the key usage instruction. Every word earns its place 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?

For a simple reporting tool with no output schema and only three parameters, the description covers the basic purpose and one usage detail. However, it omits any explanation of the required 'message' parameter, the meaning of 'context', or what the user should expect after submitting the report. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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. It only explains the 'conversation' parameter (as an array of recent messages), but leaves the required 'message' parameter and the optional 'context' parameter unexplained. This is a significant gap for a tool with three parameters, especially since one is required.

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: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, marketplace, or show_version, which serve entirely 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 provides clear usage context by stating what scenarios warrant this tool (bug, missing feature, feedback) and gives a practical instruction to 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but no sibling tool is a plausible alternative, so this is sufficient.

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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the purpose, such as what the output format looks like or any potential limitations. It does not contradict the annotations, but it does not enrich the agent's understanding of tool behavior beyond what structured fields already provide.

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 with zero filler. It conveys the purpose clearly and efficiently. There is no unnecessary detail or repetition of the tool's 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, clear annotations), the description is sufficient to understand its purpose. It does not explicitly state the return value or format, but for a trivial version-checking tool, this is acceptable. The annotations cover safety aspects, and the description covers the tool's function, making it essentially complete for its 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object (100% coverage). According to the rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description does not need to clarify parameter meanings because there are none. It simply states the action, which 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's function: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It uses a specific verb (show) and describes the exact resource (versions). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which deal with authentication, connectivity, marketplace, and bug reporting, none of which overlap with version display.

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 it (whenever version information is needed) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since none of the sibling tools provide version information, the intended usage is clear. A slight deduction for not stating 'use this when you need to check environment compatibility' or similar explicit 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety traits. The description adds value by specifying the exact content of the returned state (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which goes beyond the annotations and sets expectations for the response.

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 front-loads the verb and object, then enumerates the key elements of the return value. 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, no-parameter read-only tool without an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns: installed MCPs, their connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. It is complete for its 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 accepts zero parameters, so the schema fully covers semantics (100% coverage). The description doesn't need to add parameter details. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description correctly focuses on output rather than 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 specific verb ('returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), and details exactly what is returned: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like show_version or connect by focusing on overall state instead of a single version or 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?

Usage is implied: this is the tool to call when you need an overview of the toolkit's state. However, it does not explicitly mention when it should be preferred over siblings or any exclusions, so it relies on the user to infer the 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safe, read-only nature is covered. The description adds key behavioral context: it is hosted by the platform, does not use platform credentials, requires prepaid credits per query, and is based on official sources accessible to citizens. It also clarifies data privacy responsibilities under LGPD. This is valuable context beyond annotations, without 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 a single paragraph with two sentences, but it packs a lot of information: purpose, source, payment model, data nature, LGPD note. It is concise and front-loaded with the core action. It earns its length, though the LGPD note is somewhat tangential for tool usage but adds compliance context. 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 moderate complexity (3 optional parameters, no output schema), the description provides adequate context: official source, payment requirement, data controller responsibilities DRY and LGPD. It doesn't explain the return format, but no output schema exists. It could mention that cpf/cnpj/nome_completo are alternative filters, but the nature of CEAT consultation is clear enough for an agent to attempt 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%, and the description does not explain the parameters (cpf, cnpj, nome_completo) beyond their names. The description mentions the certificate consultation but does not specify whether these parameters are alternative identifiers, required formats, or how they relate. With 3 params and no explanation, the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, which is minimal (just names and types). Baseline for high coverage would be 3, but here coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate — it does not.

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 performs a consulta de Certidão Eletrônica de Ações Trabalhistas (CEAT) from TRT9, an official source. It is specific about the resource and action, and while it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools (which are unrelated generic tools like authenticate, marketplace), the purpose is clear enough given the context.

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 labor lawsuit certificates, and mentions payment with prepaid creditholly, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives or any exclusions. It provides context about hosting and payment but lacks direct guidance on when to choose this tool over others, though sibling tools are mostly unrelated. The note about LGPD and controller responsibility adds context for appropriate use.

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