Check server version, security status, and available resources directly from the MCP client, avoiding the need to open a browser.
Informa versão, segurança e recursos disponíveis sem abrir o navegador.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nome | Yes | ||
| versao | Yes | ||
| revisao | No | ||
| tribunal | Yes | ||
| transporte | Yes | ||
| modo_seguro | Yes | ||
| recursos_ativos | Yes | ||
| credenciais_configuradas | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool does not open the browser and implies read-only behavior through 'Informa', but it does not discuss access requirements, side effects, or failure modes. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values.
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 focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and adds the key browser-free constraint. Every word earns its place.
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 status tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states the type of information returned and the non-browser behavior, though 'segurança e recursos' could be slightly more explicit.
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 input schema, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Informa') and a clear resource ('versão, segurança e recursos disponíveis'), and adds a distinguishing behavior ('sem abrir o navegador'). This makes it easy to separate from browser-focused sibling tools like status_navegacao_adaptativa.
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 phrase 'sem abrir o navegador' implies the use case of retrieving server status without launching a browser, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mention of an alternative. Usage is mostly inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.