Veículos do Proprietário

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it explains the flow of returning a login link when called with no args and accepting a JWT token for session authentication. It also differentiates between permanent (config header) and temporary (session) modes, adding valuable context about how authentication state is managed.

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 somewhat lengthy but every sentence carries necessary information. It leads with the purpose, then explains both authentication methods. It could be tightened slightly for brevity, but it remains structured and focused.

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 authentication tool with only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains all invocation modes and expected outcomes, ensuring an agent knows exactly how 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 only defines an optional 'token' string with no description. The description fully compensates by explaining that 'token' is a JWT to be passed after the user pastes it, and that omitting it triggers a link response. This gives the parameter clear meaning and usage context that the schema lacks.

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: authenticating IDE agents to MCP.AI. It specifies the action (log in, authenticate) and the target resource (MCP.AI for IDE agents), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on browser-based token 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 provides explicit usage instructions for all scenarios: adding the token to config for permanent access, passing the token for session-only access, or calling with no args to get the link. It mentions the intended context (Cursor and similar IDE agents), but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'connect', so there is a slight gap in alternative selection 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 indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds conditional details about return values (authenticated:true with empty pending[], or connect_url for missing credentials), which goes beyond the annotation and provides useful 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?

Two efficient sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. No redundant wording, 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?

The description covers the two main scenarios (all connected vs missing credentials) and implies partial state via pending[]. It is sufficiently complete for a status tool with no output schema, though it does not detail URL structure or error cases.

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 does not need to explain parameters. The schema is empty, and the description appropriately omits parameter details; baseline for 0 params is 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 clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, with specific conditional outcomes for connected vs missing credentials. This distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like authenticate, making 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 implies this is for checking connection status but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like authenticate or toolkit_info. It provides behavioral context but lacks direct usage guidance or 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?

Beyond the annotations (which are minimal), the description discloses many behavioral traits: invoke works even when the MCP is not installed, it runs the tool one-off without adding to the toolkit, returns a connect link when credentials are needed, returns a checkout/top-up link when payment is required, and writes require workspace owner/admin. It also mentions that search/describe flag installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace, adding valuable context not inferable from 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 long dense paragraph but packs a high density of relevant information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then systematically expands into the flow, exceptions, permissions, and prompt library. While it could be better structured with bullet points or shorter sentences, every sentence earns its place, and 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?

The description covers nearly all 14 actions in the schema, including search, describe, invoke, install, uninstall, subscribe, cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, list_tools, and the three prompt actions, plus edge cases for credentials, payments, and permissions. However, it omits discussion of the 'resume' action, the 'immediate' parameter, and 'tier_slug', which are present in the schema but not explained, leaving some gaps for a tool with this many parameters and no output schema.

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 23 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does explain the meaning of key parameters through the workflow (action, query, mcp_id, tool_id, arguments) and describes the prompt-related actions (search_prompts, get_prompt, publish_prompt). However, it does not cover all parameters, such as tier_slug, immediate, resume, conversation, or cancel_reason, leaving some parameters unexplained beyond their names.

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 that the tool is the official mcp.ai marketplace—the in-platform catalog of MCPs/tools and the way to run them. It explicitly describes the core flow (search→describe→invoke) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by covering capability requests, discovery, execution, and the prompt library. The verb 'catalog' and 'run' 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 explicit usage guidance, such as 'prefer invoke for a single/occasional use; use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT' and explains when to use subscribe/cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, and the prompt library actions. It also clearly contrasts invoke vs install. However, it does not explicitly differentiate between the marketplace's report_bug action and the sibling report_bug tool, nor does it clarify when to use the sibling connect/authenticate tools instead of the connect links returned by invoke, leaving some potential ambiguity.

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 are present (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), which already convey the general safety profile. The description adds the behavioral requirement to include the conversation array for reproduction, but it does not disclose what happens after submission, potential side effects, or whether it creates an external ticket. The description does not 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 only two sentences (18 words) and is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place; there is no 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 tool has three parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema. The description covers purpose and the conversation parameter, but it omits the 'context' parameter entirely and misleadingly calls conversation an array rather than a string. The agent lacks enough information to reliably invoke the tool correctly, especially regarding parameter types and optional fields.

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 instructs to include the 'conversation array,' but the schema defines conversation as a string (default '[]'), creating a type mismatch that could mislead an agent to pass an actual array instead of a JSON string. It also does not explain the 'context' parameter, leaving its purpose ambiguous.

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 and resource, and it is distinct from all sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.), which have unrelated 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 the tool should be used for reporting issues or feedback, but it provides no explicit 'when to use' guidance or alternatives. It does instruct to include the conversation array for reproduction, which is a practical usage hint, but it does not specify when not to use it or compare it 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 and idempotentHint, which cover the safety profile. The description adds scope (MCP platform and adapter versions) but does not disclose whether any network calls are involved or the response format. With strong annotations, the bar is lower, and the description adds modest value.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key information and fits the tool's simple nature.

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 version info tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context. The annotations cover safety, and the sole sentence fully describes the tool's function. No additional details are necessary.

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, and the schema reflects this with 100% coverage (vacuously). No parameter information is needed, and the baseline of 4 applies due to the absence of 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 'Show' and clearly identifies the resource: 'current MCP platform and adapter versions.' It differentiates from siblings like authenticate, marketplace, and report_bug, 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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, but the tool's purpose is self-evident from the name and description. Usage is strongly implied for checking version information, yet there is no explicit exclusion or 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 disclose read-only and idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context by detailing exactly what the returned state includes (MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), which helps the agent understand what information will be available.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and accurately enumerates the returned elements without any fluff. Every word 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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and the nature of its return value. It is complete for the context, and the annotations provide the remaining safety profile.

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 zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain any parameter details. Per the rubric, this situation receives the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool returns the current toolkit state, explicitly listing the included components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts). The verb 'Returns' is specific, and the scope distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like authenticate 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?

Usage is implied for inspecting toolkit state, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like show_version. No exclusions or recommended contexts are mentioned, leaving some room for interpretation.

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: pay-per-query cost, public data source, and LGPD compliance responsibilities. This goes beyond the annotations, informing the agent of non-obvious operational and legal traits.

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, front-loaded with the core function. The additional details on payment and legal responsibility are relevant but slightly verbose for an AI agent. Still, it earns its place by providing useful operational 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 tool is relatively simple, and annotations cover safety, while the description covers purpose, data source, and payment. However, missing parameter semantics (especially the role of 'completo') and any mention of response format (no output schema) leave gaps. It is adequate but not fully 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions CPF or CNPJ, which maps to the Cpf and Cnpj parameters, but fails to clarify that both are required per schema (it says 'documento informado', singular, while the schema lists both as required). It also does not explain the 'completo' boolean parameter, leaving ambiguity.

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: 'Lista os veículos vinculados a um CPF ou CNPJ' (lists vehicles linked to a CPF or CNPJ), with the scope 'em âmbito nacional' (nationwide). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it 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 clear context on when to use the tool (when you need to list vehicles by provided document) and practical details (hosted by the platform, no credentials, pay-per-query). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though siblings are unrelated, so this is minor.

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