webPosto

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the browser login flow, token handling, permanent vs. session-only behavior, and the no-args link behavior. It does not mention return values or error cases, but the added context meaningfully enriches the annotation surface. 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 compact but poorly structured, with run-on sentences and an awkward opening phrase ('MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)'). All information earns its place, but the front-loading and readability suffer from informal, stream-of-consciousness phrasing.

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 simple, one-optional-parameter auth tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflows: permanent header setup, session token paste, and no-args link generation. It lacks details on response format and error behavior, but the core use cases are sufficiently documented.

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 provides no description for the optional token parameter, but the description fully compensates: it identifies the token as a JWT, explains it enables session-only login, and clarifies that omitting the parameter returns the login link. This is a strong, actionable parameter explanation.

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: authenticate by logging in via browser and either obtaining/using an access token. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling webposto_login_check by focusing on login and token exchange, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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 provides explicit usage modes: permanent connection via config header, session-only via passing a JWT, and no-args call to get the login link. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparisons with alternatives, but gives clear enough context for when each invocation style should be used.

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 and idempotentHint as true, and destructiveHint as false. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by explaining exact response structure (authenticated flag, pending array, connect_url) and the conditions under which each appears. This behavioral detail helps the agent understand output without needing to call, fully satisfying the transparency requirement.

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, direct and information-dense. The opening sentence states the core function; the second elaborates conditions and return fields. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple, side-effect-free status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers expected behavior and response conditions. The combination of annotations (read-only, idempotent) and clear return logic leaves no meaningful gaps.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per rubric, the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics as none exist.

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 with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('connection status and URLs'). It details conditional behaviors (authenticated:true when all connected, connect_url when credentials missing), making the tool's scope and output explicit. Though siblings aren't named, the precision and detail distinguish it as a status endpoint.

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 conditional language ('When all providers are connected', 'When credentials are missing') implies when the tool will return certain results, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'authenticate' or 'webposto_login_check'. No exclusionary or alternative suggestions are given, leaving usage context to inference.

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 behaviors beyond the annotations: it reveals that invoke works even when the MCP is not installed, that it runs one-off without bloating the toolkit, and that it returns connect/checkout links for credential or payment issues. It also states that writes require workspace owner/admin. These are critical behavioral traits not present in the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, etc.), so the description fully compensates and adds value.

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 well-structured, starting with a high-level overview, then the core search-describe-invoke flow, followed by key distinctions (invoke vs install), other actions, and the prompt library. It front-loads the most critical information and each sentence adds context. While verbose, the complexity of the tool justifies the length, and it is organized logically.

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 very high complexity (23 parameters, no output schema, multiple sub-actions), the description covers the main functionalities and nuances (auth, payments, permissions, invocation vs installation). However, it lacks explicit details on how to specify parameters for certain actions (e.g., arguments as JSON string, prompt_vars structure) and does not describe return formats. It is nearly complete but leaves some gaps for precise usage.

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 has 23 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning the description does not explain the meaning of individual parameters like 'query', 'limit', 'immediate', 'tier_slug', 'prompt_vars', etc. It only mentions high-level concepts (action, tool_id, mcp_id) indirectly through action explanations. This is a significant gap for a tool with this many parameters; the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 identifies the tool as the official mcp.ai marketplace, explicitly stating it is the catalog of every MCP/tool and the way to run them. It mentions specific capability requests (e.g., 'find an MCP that does X') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by covering the entire discovery-to-invocation workflow. The verb-resource pair is clear: it manages marketplace operations across many actions.

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 for each major action: search for discovery, describe for full profiles, invoke for one-off runs (preferred for single use), and install only for permanent addition. It also explains the auth/payment flow: invoke returns connect/checkout links when needed, and advises retry after user action. This clearly differentiates between actions and provides 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?

Annotations already convey read-only false, destructive false, and idempotent true; the description adds the reproduction-context expectation but does not disclose side effects, response behavior, or failure characteristics. It provides some value beyond annotations but leaves the mutation behavior largely unspecified.

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 main purpose, and no filler. The second sentence adds a concrete necessary instruction about the conversation array.

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 simple three-string-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description conveys the main use and one key parameter. However, required parameter 'message' and optional 'context' remain undefined, so the tool is not fully self-contained for an agent.

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. It only explains the 'conversation' parameter's purpose ('recent messages for reproduction') and leaves 'message' and 'context' inferred from context. The required 'message' field is unclear without guessing.

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: reporting a bug, missing feature, or sending feedback. It uses a specific verb and resource, and while it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, no siblings overlap with this function.

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 provides explicit use cases ('bug, missing feature, or send feedback') and instructs the caller to include recent conversation messages for reproduction. It lacks when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool references, but the context is otherwise clear.

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 annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe, non-destructive nature is clear. The description adds that it reports 'current' versions, reinforcing that it is a live informational read with no 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 a single, clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Show') and specifies the exact resource in a compact way.

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, read-only version information tool, this description is complete. With no output schema present, the description sufficiently conveys that the tool returns current MCP platform and adapter versions; no additional context is necessary given the tool's simplicity.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema fully covers the empty parameter set and the description does not omit anything relevant.

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 'Show' with a clear resource ('the current MCP platform and adapter versions'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like authenticate or marketplace, making the purpose immediately obvious.

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 intended usage scenario is implied: call this when you need version information about the MCP platform and adapters. However, the description provides no explicit context about when to prefer this over other informational tools like toolkit_info, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about what the returned state includes, which clarifies the scope of the operation 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any fluff. Every word adds value.

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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. No additional information is needed.

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 the schema reflects that, making description-level parameter explanation unnecessary. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no irrelevant parameter discussion.

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 the current toolkit state and enumerates the specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like authenticate or connect.

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 as a read-only state inspection tool, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools are action-oriented, but no explicit recommendation is given.

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 and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't add much on safety. It does specify the scope (this install) and the output fields (id, label), which adds some value beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action, includes output fields. No waste.

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?

Simple list tool with 0 paramsholiday, output described adequately.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it could mention any assumptions. Since there are none, it's fine. Score 4? But baseline is 4, so 4.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: listing webPosto accounts connected to the current installation, including id and label (CNPJ/user). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or marketplace.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (to see connected accounts) by stating 'connected to this install,' but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives. Since sibling names like 'connect' and 'marketplace' contextually signal the difference, guidance is adequate but not exhaustive.

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, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond those: it explicitly states the tool performs a login to the official backend and returns the session token, branches, and user data. This clarifies the nature of the operation (a validation, not a persistent connection) and what the response contains, complementing the annotations without contradiction.

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 two sentences: the first explains what it does and returns, the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence carries essential information with no filler or redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

Despite having no output schema or parameters, the description covers the tool's core purpose, the action performed (login to official backend), the success indicator (returns if it worked), and the specific data returned (token, branches, user data). It also gives a concrete use case. While it could mention potential failure outcomes or prerequisites, the description is adequate for a simple credential check with full annotation support.

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?

There are 0 parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not add parameter details because none exist. It implicitly covers the tool's scope by explaining what the login validates, which aligns with the zero-parameter schema.

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 'Valida' (validates) and resource 'credencial webPosto', clearly stating it logs in and returns whether it succeeded along with the login body (session token, branches, user data). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on credential validation for confirming CNPJ/user/password correctness, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use pra confirmar que CNPJ/usuário/senha estão corretos e que o dispositivo foi liberado no painel' (use to confirm credentials are correct and device is released). While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, it clearly advises when to invoke this tool, which is sufficient context for a simple validation check.

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