Busca uma oportunidade pelo ID (retorna contato, etapa, valor e número sequencial #NN).
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "oportunidade_get"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload (contato, etapa, valor, número sequencial #NN), which is genuinely useful with no output schema, but it says nothing about behavior when the ID does not exist, permissions required, or whether the read has 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?
One compact sentence that front-loads the action and appends the return contract in parentheses. No filler; the only slight weakness is that the return info is packed into a parenthetical rather than a clear clause.
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 single-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers what it does and what comes back, which is the essential minimum. Missing not-found and permission behavior keeps it short of full 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?
There is a single parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It says the lookup is 'pelo ID', confirming the parameter's role, but adds nothing about UUID format or source of the ID – the schema alone carries the uuid format signal.
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?
States a specific verb and resource in Portuguese ('Busca uma oportunidade pelo ID'), making the lookup-by-identifier operation unambiguous. The parenthetical listing of returned fields further pins down what the tool is for, though it never names a sibling tool it differs from.
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?
Usage is only implied: the phrase 'pelo ID' signals this is the single-record lookup as opposed to a listing. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it, and no mention of the sibling oportunidade_list as the alternative when only a filter is known.
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.