Lista metas com o progresso atual (valor atingido e percentual). vigentes=true traz só as do período atual.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "meta_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vigentes | No | ||
| usuario_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a read/list operation returning current progress, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, result limits, or whether usuario_id changes scope or permissions — all material for a list tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the filtering hint. Nothing is redundant.
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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what is returned and one filter. It falls short on the second parameter and on result-shape details (ordering, volume) that an agent would need to call it confidently.
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 does add real meaning for 'vigentes' (restricts to the current period), but leaves 'usuario_id' entirely unexplained — the agent cannot tell whether it filters by owner, excludes other users' goals, or is required for scoping.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Lista metas') and even names the payload content (achieved value and percentage), which no sibling name implies. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling list tools, but the resource is distinct enough that an agent can select it without opening the schema.
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 only guidance is embedded in the parameter note ('vigentes=true traz só as do período atual'), which tells the agent how to narrow the call but not when to prefer this tool over a sibling or whether it is the right entry point for goal lookups. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.