Verify an existing certificate login attempt without resubmitting or requesting a PIN, confirming whether authentication succeeded.
Verifica a tentativa existente sem clicar novamente ou solicitar PIN.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| grau | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| grau | Yes | ||
| estado | Yes | ||
| mensagem | Yes | ||
| url_atual | Yes | ||
| autenticado | Yes | ||
| modo_autenticacao | No | cpf_senha_mfa |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: checking an existing attempt without clicking or requesting a PIN, implying a non-interactive verification. But it does not clarify whether the tool polls, what state changes occur, or whether the attempt is consumed or preserved, which is important for a tool with no annotation safety profile.
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 sentence with no filler and the core action is front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it omits necessary parameter semantics, so brevity comes at the cost of completeness.
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?
Although an output schema exists, this is a no-annotation tool with one required enum parameter and several closely related siblings. The description gives only a high-level purpose and leaves invocation requirements, parameter meaning, and sibling differentiation unresolved. That is not enough for correct standalone use.
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 single required parameter, grau, is completely absent from the description. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to explain what grau means and how to choose between '1g' and '2g'. It does neither, so an agent cannot reliably select the correct value.
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 states a specific action: 'Verifica a tentativa existente' (checks the existing attempt) and adds a key constraint: 'sem clicar novamente ou solicitar PIN' (without clicking again or requesting a PIN). This distinguishes it from tools that start a login, though it does not explicitly name siblings or define what 'tentativa existente' means in detail.
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 an attempt already exists and the user wants to avoid re-triggering a click or PIN prompt. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives like testar_login or abrir_login_certificado, leaving the routing between siblings to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.