CNDT (Débitos Trabalhistas)

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true; the description adds context by explaining the token's non-expiring nature via header config versus session-only login when passed directly. It does not fully describe side effects like token storage, but the key behavioral distinction is clear.

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 well-structured, using 'Best:' and 'Or' to separate permanent and session-based flows. Every sentence adds a necessary detail: context, permanent option, session option, and call syntax.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the main invocation patterns, the difference between permanent and session authentication, and the no-args behavior. It does not explicitly state what the tool returns when a token is provided, but this is a minor gap for an authentication 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 input schema only defines 'token' as a plain string with no description. The description explains that token is an optional JWT pasted after browser login, and that omitting it triggers a link-returning flow. This fully compensates for the 0% schema 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 states the tool's purpose: authenticate an IDE agent by logging in through the browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes between permanent header-based configuration and session-only token login, which differentiates it from siblings like '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?

It provides explicit guidance: 'Best: add it to this server's config as a header' for permanent access, or 'paste it here for a session-only login.' It also explains when to call with no args (to get the link) and with a token (after pasting), covering both primary usage modes.

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, lowering the bar. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the conditional output structure (authenticated:true vs connect_url), which goes 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-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no redundant or extraneous wording. It is concise and well-structured.

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 adequately covers both possible outcomes and the URLs returned. It is sufficiently complete without missing critical 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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, no additional parameter explanation is needed in the 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 states the tool returns connection status and URLs, with specific details on the output in different scenarios. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate by focusing on status rather than initiating authentication.

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 this tool versus alternatives like authenticate. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving usage somewhat inferred.

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 discloses important behaviors not captured by annotations: invoke runs a tool one-off without adding it to the toolkit, writes require workspace owner/admin, and invoke returns connect or checkout links for credential/payment requirements. It also explains the effects of install (permanent addition to toolkit), making side effects transparent. 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 dense and front-loaded, opening with the tool's purpose and immediately presenting the core flow. Every sentence provides actionable information, though the single-paragraph format with many semicolons makes it harder to scan; a bulleted structure would improve readability. The length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 broad scope and the absence of an output schema, the description does an exceptional job of covering the main flows, return behaviors (profile, connect link, checkout link, shareable slug), permission requirements, and the distinction between one-off invoke and permanent install. It also covers the prompt library subsystem, making the description complete enough for a complex multi-action 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 description adds meaning to the 'action' parameter by detailing what each action does and defines the roles of 'tool_id', 'arguments', and prompt-related parameters through the core flow and examples. However, with zero schema description coverage and 23 parameters, many parameters (e.g., limit, query, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason) lack explicit explanation, leaving the agent to infer their purpose from 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 explicitly identifies the tool as the 'official mcp.ai marketplace' and explains its dual role: cataloging every MCP/tool and running them. It outlines the core flow (search → describe → invoke) and enumerates the actions, clearly distinguishing this central marketplace tool from siblings like authenticate, connect, or report_bug.

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 guidance on when to use invoke vs install: 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use' and 'Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT'. It also explains when to use search, describe, list_tools, report_bug, request_mcp, and the prompt library actions, giving clear decision rules for alternative actions.

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 convey readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the behavioral instruction to include the conversation array for reproduction, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like data transmission or privacy implications, so it earns a mid-range score.

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 of 15 words, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no extraneous detail or repetition of schema fields.

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 only three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and one key parameter. However, it leaves the 'context' parameter unexplained and does not mention what happens after reporting. This is 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It directly explains the 'conversation' parameter and implies the 'message' parameter holds the report content. However, the 'context' parameter is left unexplained, and the format of the conversation (e.g., JSON string) is not clarified, so 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 uses a specific action verb ('Report') and explicitly names the resources (bug, missing feature, feedback), making its purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools 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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when encountering a bug, missing feature, or wanting to send feedback. It stops short of explicitly excluding alternatives, but none of the sibling tools are similar, so 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, providing safety context. The description adds no extra behavioral detail beyond stating it shows versions, which is acceptable given the simplicity, but it doesn't disclose return format or potential variations.

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 clear sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero waste. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 no-parameter, read-only informational tool, the description fully captures its function. Annotations cover safety, and no output schema is needed for such a simple tool. The description is complete for selection and 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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate as none exist. The schema already fully covers the empty parameter set.

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.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or report_bug, leaving no ambiguity.

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?

While no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, the context is clear: this is a simple version query with no parameters. The description implies it should be used to retrieve version information, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from similar tools like toolkit_info.

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 value by specifying exactly what aspects of toolkit state are exposed (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), offering more transparency than the annotations alone.

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, front-loads the action ('Returns the current toolkit state'), and lists the key details without any filler. Every element contributes to understanding, and it is highly 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It fully specifies what the tool returns, and annotations cover safety. There are no gaps that would prevent an agent from correctly invoking or interpreting 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?

Schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't, which is acceptable. No additional parameter semantics are 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: 'Returns the current toolkit state' and enumerates specific contents (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which have 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 context by detailing the type of information returned, which implies use when a user needs an overview of toolkit state. It doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but given the read-only informational nature, 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces these by stating it accesses public information. It adds meaningful behavioral context: no credentials needed, per-query prepaid pricing, and LGPD compliance responsibilities, which go 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 a concise three-sentence paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose, then adds essential operational and legal context. Every sentence provides value without redundant or filler content.

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 the tool's purpose, input types, payment model, and data classification. It does not explicitly describe the return value or error handling, but the nature of the tool (issuing a certificate) makes the output largely implicit. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward read operation.

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. It explains that CPF and CNPJ are the identifiers used to query the certificate, but it does not clarify the 'completo' boolean parameter or provide formatting requirements. The description partially covers the two required parameters but leaves the optional one undocumented.

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 'Emite' (issues) and clearly identifies the resource: the Certidão Negativa de Débitos Trabalhistas (CNDT) from TST. It specifies the input types (CPF/CNPJ) and scope (person or company), making it distinct from the platform-level sibling tools like authenticate and 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 provides clear context for use: this tool queries public data using CPF/CNPJ and requires prepaid credit. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the operational context and input requirements are clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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