Tribunal TSE: Situação Eleitoral

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

The description discloses important behavior: no-args returns a login link, token submission enables session-only login, and config header enables permanent connection. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description does not contradict this; it adds useful context about persistence and session behavior.

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 fairly compact and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Three sentences cover the browser flow, permanent config option, and session-only alternative. Some phrasing is slightly run-on, but each sentence adds necessary operational detail.

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 one-parameter authentication tool with no output schema, the description explains the auth flow, the optional token parameter, and the two login modes. It does not describe the exact return value beyond 'get the link', but the coverage is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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 only declares an optional string token with no description, so the description carries the burden. It explains the token as a JWT/access token to paste after user login and explicitly shows the call pattern { token: "<jwt>" }, plus no-args behavior. This adequately compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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 an authentication/login flow for IDE agents: log in in the browser and copy an access token. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on token-based authentication, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for comparison.

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 practical guidance: use the server config header for permanent non-expiring access, paste the token for session-only login, or call with no args to get the login link. It does not explicitly discuss when to use sibling tools, but it clearly explains the two main usage paths.

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 as safe, so the bar for added value is met by describing return payloads: authenticated:true with empty pending[], and connect_url when credentials are missing. This adds behavioral context beyond the structured hints, though it does not fully cover partial connection states.

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 primary purpose, and every clause adds meaningful information about return values. There is no redundant wording or repetition of schema details.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains key return values (authenticated:true, pending[], connect_url, per-install URLs). However, it does not explicitly describe the partial-connection state (e.g., some providers pending), leaving a small but meaningful gap in complete status enumeration.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because the description need not compensate for missing parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') with a clear resource ('connection status and URLs'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than the auth action. The conditional details about authenticated:true and connect_url make the purpose 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?

The description provides clear context on expected behavior in different credential states, implying when to use this tool to check connectivity rather than to perform actions like 'authenticate'. It lacks explicit exclusion or alternative guidance, but the conditional states give practical usage 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?

No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint:false aligns with documented writes; openWorldHint:true aligns with a dynamic catalog). The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: invoke runs tools one-off 'even when the MCP is NOT installed' without bloating the toolkit, returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment with retry semantics, requires 'workspace owner/admin' for writes, and flags installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace in search/describe. Minor unaddressed behaviors (resume semantics, subscribe details) hold it slightly below 5.

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?

Every sentence carries genuine information — no filler — and the core flow is front-loaded at the start. However, it is a single dense ~350-word wall of text covering both MCP marketplace and the prompt-library sub-system, with no bullets, sections, or action-by-action structure. An agent parsing the action×parameter matrix only telegraphically references each parameter, which hurts scannability despite the density.

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, 14-action dual-purpose tool with no output schema, the description covers the core search/describe/invoke flow, the one-off invocation caveat, permission requirements, and connect/checkout edge cases admirably. Gaps remain: several actions are only listed by name (resume, subscribe/cancel mechanics, list_tools return contents), and parameters like immediate, tier_slug, conversation, and prompt_targets are never explained. Substantial but incomplete documentation for the tool's true complexity.

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% across 23 parameters, so the description carries full burden — but it only clarifies action, mcp_id, tool_id, and arguments conceptually. The remaining 15+ parameters (limit, query, immediate, tier_slug, prompt_body, prompt_vars, conversation, request_details, cancel_reason, prompt_targets, etc.) are never mentioned or mapped to the described flows. With 23 undocumented parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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 states the purpose precisely: 'the official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them.' It explains the core search→describe→invoke flow and differentiates from sibling tools by noting it 'carries the mcp.ai PROMPT LIBRARY' separately, and single-action siblings like report_bug appear as sub-actions here. The verb+resource+scope are all explicit and highly specific.

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?

Excellent guidance: 'Core flow: action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns... → invoke RUNS that tool.' It explicitly contrasts invoke vs install ('Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use'), explains the connect/checkout retry flow ('the user opens it, then you retry'), and directs when to use request_mcp ('asks us to build a NEW MCP when nothing fits'). Explicit when/alternatives and exclusions are all present.

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 idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds a behavioral hint about including conversation for reproduction, which is useful context beyond annotations, but does not disclose other behaviors like data transmission or error handling. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every word adds value—it states the action, scope, and a key usage hint.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain expected message content, what happens after submission, or any preconditions. The only additional context is the conversation array for reproduction, which is insufficient for complete understanding.

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 explicitly mentions 'conversation array' and its purpose, but does not explain the 'message' (required) or 'context' parameters. This leaves two of three parameters undocumented in the description, failing to provide sufficient guidance.

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/feedback) and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' or 'marketplace' by its feedback-oriented function.

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 ('Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback') and provides context for reproduction by mentioning the conversation array. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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 the safety profile. The description adds that it returns both platform and adapter versions, providing useful scope 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?

One concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words 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 parameterless, read-only version check, the description fully covers what the tool does. No output schema is needed, and the description sufficiently conveys the expected 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 the description is not required to explain parameter usage. The description's mention of what versions are shown adds context beyond the empty schema, aligning with the baseline 4.

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 the specific verb 'Show' and identifies the resource as 'current MCP platform and adapter versions,' clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like toolkit_info or marketplace. It fully captures the tool's function.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative tool guidance is provided. The use case is implied by the tool's nature—when version information is needed—but it doesn't mention alternatives or prerequisites.

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. The description adds value by listing the returned information, which is helpful because there is no output schema. It doesn't contradict the annotations and provides context beyond the structured fields.

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 is well-structured and front-loaded with the key phrase 'Returns the current toolkit state' followed by a succinct list of returned content. Every word adds value, with no 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?

This tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema). The description fully explains what the output includes, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. For its complexity level, the description is complete and sufficient for an agent to understand usage and results.

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 schema is empty and coverage is trivially 100%. There are no parameters to explain, so the description needs no further parameter information and appropriately doesn't include it.

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 the current toolkit state, listing specific content (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This is a specific verb (returns) plus a resource (toolkit state), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like authenticate, connect, 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?

The description implicitly conveys this is an informational tool, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. However, the content and sibling names make the use case clear: it provides state/status rather than executing actions. There are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned, but the context is acceptable.

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 operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral details: paid per query with prepaid credit, no platform credentials required, data is not classified, and LGPD responsibilities apply. There is 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by relevant background on hosting, credentials, payment, and data privacy. It is not overly long, though some compliance language could have been tightened without losing essential context.

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 explains the source, cost, and legal framing of the query, but it does not describe what the response contains, what the minimum query parameters are, how the four inputs relate, or what the expected output shape is. Given the lack of an output schema and zero parameter descriptions, this leaves critical gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool 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 four parameters with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not mention cpf, name, birthdate, or titulo_eleitoral at all. It also fails to explain which parameters are expected, in what combination, or what formats to use. The description does nothing to compensate for the missing schema 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 identifies the tool as a query for TSE electoral situation from official sources, making the resource and operation clear enough for an agent to select it. It does not explicitly describe the return value, but it goes beyond the title and is distinct from the unrelated 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?

The description provides useful context such as official source, prepaid credit cost, and citizen-available data, which implies this is the tool to use for electoral status queries. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives or what prerequisite identifiers are needed.

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