MDA SEAD: Declaração de Aptidão ao PRONAF (DAP)

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

The description explains that using the tool with a token results in a 'session-only login' implying side effects, but doesn't clarify what happens on the server (e.g., token storage, session expiration). It also doesn't describe the output when called with a token, only that without args you get the link.

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 moderately concise, conveying necessary details about two authentication methods and configuration. It's somewhat longer than needed but stays focused, though it could benefit from clearer segmentation.

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 lacks an output schema. While it explains the input scenarios, it does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., success message, token, or link). Error handling and edge cases are also unaddressed, reducing the overall context completeness.

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 only parameter 'token' is explained as a JWT that the user pastes. The description mentions two usage modes: with a token or with no arguments to get the link. This provides a good understanding of the parameter's role, even though the schema lacks a description.

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 this tool is for MCP.AI authentication in IDE agents like Cursorais. It explains the login process and provides two distinct methods: permanent via header configuration and session-only via token argument.

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 gives explicit instructions: call with a token for session login, or with no args to receive a login link. It also recommends the best practice of adding a header to the server config for a permanent connection, which serves as usage 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 declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, which align with the described read-only status check. The description adds valuable context about conditional return values: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all connected, and connect_url when credentials missing, going beyond the 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, no redundancy. Each sentence adds specific state-conditioned detail.

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 both main states (all connected vs missing credentials) and mentions key return fields (authenticated, pending[], connect_url). For a stateless read-only tool with no output schema, this is sufficiently complete, though it could clarify what 'per-install URLs' refers to.

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 zero parameters, the schema is trivially covered. The description correctly omits parameter details; no additional meaning needed.

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,' a specific read-only resource. It differentiates from the sibling 'authenticate' by focusing on status rather than action.

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 explains the tool's behavior conditional on connection state, implying use for checking status. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs authenticate or other siblings, nor does it mention alternatives.

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?

The description discloses rich behavioral traits beyond the annotations: invoke runs tools one-off without installing or bloating the tool list, returns a connect link when credentials are needed, returns a checkout/top-up link when the wallet is empty, and requires workspace owner/admin for writes. These details add essential execution context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 long but every sentence adds meaningful behavioral or flow information, and it is front-loaded with purpose and core flow. It is dense without much waste, though it is structured as a single large paragraph rather than clear sections, making it harder to scan.

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 23-parameter, multi-action tool with no output schema, the description covers the core flows, permissions, connection/payment behavior, installed-status flags, and the prompt library. Gaps remain: the resume action and parameters like immediate and conversation are not explained, and subscribe/cancel details are minimal.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does substantially: it explains the action enum, tool_id, arguments, prompt_slug, prompt_vars, and other prompt-related parameters through the narrative flow. However, some parameters remain unexplained (limit, immediate, resume, conversation), though the high-level flow covers the most important ones.

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 the tool's purpose clearly: "The official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them." This gives a specific verb+resource and establishes the tool as a catalog plus execution mechanism, distinguishing it from siblings like authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: "Core flow: action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns one MCP's full profile ... so you pick the right tool_id → invoke RUNS that tool." It also states when to prefer install over invoke: "Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit; prefer invoke for a single/occasional use." This directly guides selection among actions.

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, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it is hosted on the platform, requires no credentials, involves per-query payment, and clarifies that data is not confidential and is subject to LGPD. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not detail any other side effects.

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 relatively concise but repetitive, using phrases like 'consulta' and 'oficial' multiple times. It is structured as a few sentences but lacks clear organization. Some redundancy exists, such as repeating 'consulta informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais' after the initial statement. It could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 provides useful context about the data source (official Brazilian bodies), its status as non-confidential, and legal considerations (LGPD). However, it does not describe what information is returned by the query, which is a significant gap for a lookup tool. Since there is no output schema, the description could have elaborated on the expected result. Overall, it gives some context but leaves the functional output unspecified.

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 lists three parameters (cpf, cnpj, birthdate) with no descriptions. The description does not explain their purpose or format. While one might infer that cpf and cnpj are Brazilian tax identifiers and birthdate is for individual verification, this is not explicit, leaving users to guess. The description also does not clarify which parameter is required beyond the schema's 'required' field.

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: consulting the Declaração de Aptidão ao PRONAF (DAP) from official Brazilian sources. The verb 'consultar' and the resource 'DAP' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on this particular data lookup.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions payment and legal aspects but lacks context on typical use cases or distinctions from other tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect'. No alternatives are referenced, leaving the usage scenario implicit.

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?

The description adds minimal behavioral information beyond the annotations. It indicates the action of reporting (non-read-only) but does not disclose side effects like sending data to a server, the need for authentication, or any rate limits. The instruction to include conversation array is more about parameter usage than behavioral disclosure. Since annotations already cover non-destructiveness and idempotency, the description does not significantly enhance transparency.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose and then gives a targeted usage instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary information 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 tool is relatively simple (no output schema, few parameters), but the description is not complete. It does not explain the required 'message' parameter, what 'context' means, or mention any authentication prerequisites (sibling authenticate exists). The description gives a clear purpose but lacks enough detail for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without additional assumptions.

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 for parameter meanings. It mentions 'Include the conversation array' and explains its purpose ('for reproduction'), which helps for that parameter. However, it does not explain 'message' (the required field) or 'context', leaving them vague. Since only one of three parameters is addressed, the description only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It uses a specific verb ('report') and resource (bug/feedback), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which serve different functions. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 is for reporting issues or feedback, which gives a general sense of when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives. It adds a how-to instruction ('Include the conversation array...') but lacks explicit contextual guidance like prerequisites 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, but it does clarify the scope (platform and adapter versions). No contradiction with 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 single, concise sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose. There is zero waste, and it is appropriately front-loaded with the verb 'Show'.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, clear annotations), the description is complete enough. It covers what the tool does and the scope of versions. It could mention the return format, but with no output schema and a simple read operation, this is not a significant gap.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description correctly indicates no parameters are needed, and the baseline for zero-param tools is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, which 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: showing current MCP platform and adapter versions. It uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('versions'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'toolkit_info' by focusing on platform/adapter versions rather than general toolkit info.

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 usage context (when you need version info) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'toolkit_info'. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance, but the purpose is clear enough for basic selection.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat those. The description adds value by specifying the exact content of the returned state (installed MCPs, connection status, etc.), but it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether it makes network calls or if there is any latency or failure modes. Given the strong annotation coverage, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose and includes all relevant information without any waste. Every clause adds value, listing the specific details the agent can expect.

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 simple, has no parameters, and no output schema, so the description does not need to explain parameters or return types. It fully covers what the tool does and what to expect, making it complete for this low-complexity tool.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage (trivially, since there are no properties). The description clarifies what the tool returns, which is the main semantic content needed. Since there are no parameters to explain, a baseline of 4 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 clearly states that the tool returns the current toolkit state, listing exactly what it includes: installed MCPs, connection status, associated accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is a specific verb and resource ('returns toolkit state'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like connect or authenticate by focusing on status information.

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 that this tool is used when an agent needs information about the toolkit's state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. For example, it doesn't say 'use this before connecting' or 'use this to check what accounts are available', which could be helpful given the sibling tools.

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