info_empresaRetorna informações gerais sobre a empresa: URL, total de produtos, categorias, planos e faixa de preço.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| plans_count | Yes | ||
| price_range | No | ||
| products_count | Yes | ||
| categories_count | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "categories_count": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "plans_count": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "price_range": {
+ "properties": {
+ "max": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "min": {
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "products_count": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "slug": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "slug",
+ "url",
+ "products_count",
+ "categories_count",
+ "plans_count"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes by signaling the response shape is an aggregate summary (counts, categories, price range) rather than a full listing, which helps set expectations, but adds no other behavioral context.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the field enumeration is the substance and earns its space.
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?
An output schema exists, so the return values need not be spelled out, and annotations carry the safety profile. For a zero-parameter read tool this covers what an agent needs, though it could note the overview-vs-listing relationship to siblings.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Retorna informações gerais sobre a empresa') and enumerates the returned fields (URL, total de produtos, categorias, planos, faixa de preço), which distinguishes it from the itemized siblings like buscar_produtos and listar_categorias. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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 phrase 'informações gerais' hints this is the overview/aggregate entry point rather than a filtered listing, but the description never says when to call this instead of listar_categorias or listar_planos. Usage is inferable, not instructed.
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.