Certidão de Quitação Eleitoral (TSE)

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

Beyond annotations, the description reveals that no-args returns a login link, the token is a JWT, and the config header gives a non-expiring connection while pasting provides session-only access. This adds meaningful behavioral context, though failure modes and config-overwrite behavior are not covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences carry useful information, but the first sentence is cluttered with 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)' and the instruction tone is conversational. It could be more streamlined while remaining front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 single-parameter auth tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential flows: permanent config, session-only paste, and no-args link retrieval. It adequately explains the token type and usage. A brief note on post-login response or errors would improve 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?

The input schema only defines a string token with no description. The description compensates by explaining the JWT format and the effect of providing the token vs omitting it. It makes the parameter's usage clear, though it does not detail validation or error handling.

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 authentication for MCP.AI IDE agents, involving browser login and token provisioning. It distinguishes from siblings like connect or show_version by focusing on token-based auth. The purpose is embedded in usage instructions rather than a crisp standalone statement.

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: two modes (permanent config vs session-only) and when to call with or without the token argument. It recommends the config approach but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use this 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?

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds concrete behavioral details: returns authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected, and returns connect_url + per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This is useful context, though it does not 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 main purpose and then conditional details. No filler or 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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers the two primary outcomes well. It might be slightly more complete if it addressed partial provider connections, but overall it is adequate.

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 empty. The description naturally needs to explain no parameters, and it does not need to add param semantics. Baseline of 4 applies.

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 distinguishes two key conditions (all providers connected vs missing credentials). This is a specific verb+resource statement that differentiates from siblings like authenticate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is used to check connection status before authenticating, based on the conditional behaviors. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like authenticate, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use 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?

Goes beyond annotations by detailing the one-off invoke behavior, the connect/checkout links for missing credentials/wallet, and the fact that writes require admin. Aligns with readOnlyHint=false and does not contradict destructiveHint=false.

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 one long, dense paragraph that front-loads the main purpose but is hard to scan. It packs valuable information, but a structured format with bullets or sections would significantly improve readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers an impressive amount of context: the full action set, credential and payment edge cases, permission requirements, and the prompt library. It provides some return-value hints (e.g., describe's profile, publish_prompt's link), but without an output schema, not all action responses are specified.

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 descriptions, the description explains key parameters like action values, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments, prompt_vars, and prompt_slug through the workflow. However, many optional parameters (limit, query, immediate, tier_slug, conversation, etc.) remain undefined, so it doesn't fully compensate for the schema's silence.

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 'The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them,' giving a clear, specific purpose. It further breaks down the core flow (search → describe → invoke) and lists all 14 actions, distinguishing itself from sibling tools like toolkit_info and authenticate.

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?

Explicitly contrasts invoke vs install: 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT ... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use.' It also explains when to use list_tools, subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, and the prompt actions, plus notes that write operations require workspace owner/admin.

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 define the tool as idempotent and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds the useful context that the conversation array is needed for reproduction, which hints at the tool's intended use. However, it doesn't disclose any potential side effects or expected response behavior, so it remains at the basic level.

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 unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose and immediately follows with the key usage instruction. Every sentence adds value, making it an exemplar of concise, well-structured documentation.

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 3 parameters, the description covers the main action and the most important parameter. It doesn't explain return values, but that's not critical for such a tool given its annotations. The description is complete enough for the AI to understand what the tool does and how to use it properly, though a bit more detail on response handling could make it a 5.

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 no descriptions for the parameters (0% coverage), so the description should compensate. It clarifies the 'conversation' parameter by stating it should include recent messages for reproduction, but it doesn't explain 'message' (the required field) or 'context'. Thus, it partially adds meaning beyond the schema but doesn't fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, marketplace, or show_version, 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 implies when to use the tool (when reporting bugs, missing features, or feedback) and even gives guidance to include the conversation array for reproduction. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would be a 5. Still, the context is clear and there are no conflicting reporting tools among the siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no extra safety context. It only restates the action without disclosing output format, side effects, or other behaviors beyond what the name and 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and target. It is perfectly sized with 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 trivial version-listing tool, the description is adequate but does not specify the return format or structure. Since there is no output schema, a brief note on what the user receives would improve completeness, but the core purpose is clear.

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 provides no information. The description naturally adds no parameter details, but the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the simplicity makes this acceptable.

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 action ('Show') and the specific resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is obvious, the description does not mention any context or exclusions relative to sibling tools.

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, openWorldHint, destructiveHint, so safety is known. Description adds specifics about what the state includes—installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts—which is helpful behavioral context 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Returns', and enumerates contents efficiently. 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 simple read-only info tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the returned information. It could optionally mention the format of connection statuses, but the current level is sufficient for 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The schema correctly shows an empty object, and the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline of 4 applies.

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 components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like show_version and authenticate.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for inspecting toolkit state, which is useful for understanding what's connected. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives or mention any exclusions.

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?

Despite having annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds significant behavioral context beyond them: it discloses the payment model (pay per query with prepaid credit), the absence of credential requirements, the public nature of the data, and the client's responsibility under LGPD. This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and obligations.

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 consists of three purposeful sentences, each adding value: the first states the action, the second describes hosting/payment, and the third clarifies data publicity and legal responsibility. There is no redundant fluff or repetition of schema fields, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 read-only query tool with no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: purpose, input types, payment model, and data source. It mentions 'emite a certidão' hinting at the return value. However, it does not detail the certificate response structure or error cases, nor explain the optional 'completo' parameter, leaving minor 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It lists the main fields (nome, CPF, título, data de nascimento, filiação), covering 6 of 7 parameters. However, it omits the 'completo' boolean parameter and does not provide format details (e.g., CPF formatting, date format), so the compensation is partial.

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 emits a certificate of electoral clearance (certidão de quitação eleitoral) from TSE, listing the specific inputs (name, CPF, título, birth date, filiação). This is a specific verb+resource combination that unambiguously distinguishes it from the generic sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.).

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: hosted by the platform, no credentials required, pay-per-query with prepaid credit, and queries only public-access data from official sources. It implicitly excludes private/sensitive data by stating the information is not private or confidential, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools because no similar siblings exist.

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