listar_capacidades_mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses what the tool returns (sources, domains, coverage, version) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, free of side effects, or safe to call anytime. The empty schema with additionalProperties:false structurally prevents side effects, which mitigates the gap, but the safety profile is only implicit.

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?

A single eight-word sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and enumerates the returned content compactly. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy with the title (which is null) or the schema.

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, output-schema-backed metadata tool, the description is largely complete: the four returned categories are named, and an output schema exists so return structure need not be explained. It could add one sentence framing this as the discovery entry point for understanding the server's data sources, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 an empty schema, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about parameters, and it sensibly does not invent any.

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 'Retorna fontes, domínios, cobertura e versão do catálogo MCP' states a specific verb (Retorna) and a well-defined resource (the MCP catalog), naming the four content categories returned. It is clearly distinct from the ~170 sibling tools, which all query specific procurement data rather than catalog metadata, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any sibling by name.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The intended use is only implied by the tool's nature as a zero-parameter capability/metadata listing tool; the description never states 'call this to discover which data sources are available before querying' or anything equivalent.

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