Create a course completion certificate by providing the learner's name, technology, and skill level. Returns an ASCII certificate for beginner or advanced tracks.
Gera um certificado de conclusão para o aprendiz.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Nome do aprendiz | |
| level | Yes | Nível: iniciante ou avancado | |
| technology | Yes | Nome da tecnologia |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral transparency, but it only states that a certificate is generated. It does not specify side effects, persistence, permissions, or return behavior, which is especially relevant for an action that may create or deliver a file.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy.
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 leaves out what the tool returns or does with the generated certificate (e.g., create a file, return a URL, persist to a system). Since there are no annotations and no output schema, this behavioral gap is significant for an agent deciding whether this is the right call and what to expect.
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 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond stating the purpose, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Gera' / 'generates') and a clear object ('certificado de conclusão para o aprendiz'), making the tool's purpose obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tools 'trilha' and 'desafio', though the certificate-generation intent is distinct enough.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor any conditions, prerequisites, or contexts. The description is purely a definition of function, so an agent has no help choosing between this and 'trilha' or 'desafio'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.