Estado do dono (precisa do token edm_…): e-mail confirmado, franquia e o segredo whsec_… que assina cada webhook (Standard Webhooks: webhook-id, webhook-timestamp, webhook-signature).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the required auth token, the returned data (confirmed email, franchise, whsec_ secret), and the Standard Webhooks signing context. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but 'Estado do dono' implies a non-mutating lookup, and there is 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?
The description is a single dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then packs the essential details: token requirement, returned state fields, and webhook signature behavior.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers prerequisites and output semantics. It could also state the HTTP method or response format explicitly, but the essential information for calling and interpreting the tool is present.
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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter details to document. The description adds value by clarifying the edm_ token requirement, which is an auth prerequisite rather than a schema parameter.
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 resource ('dono') and conveys a status/lookup intent via 'Estado do dono', listing the relevant fields: confirmed email, franchise, and the webhook signing secret. It is distinguishable from siblings like criar_dono and rotacionar_segredo_webhook, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'obter' or 'consultar'.
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 establishes clear context: this is the tool for reading owner status, and it requires an edm_ token. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling set makes the distinction straightforward, and no competing status-lookup tool is present.
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.
Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and descriptions clearly separate alerta_por_cnpj from criar_alerta and vigiar_compra from vigia_eventos. Only recibo is somewhat generic without reading its description, and the two alert-creation tools share a conceptual overlap.
All names use snake_case, but conventions vary widely: some are verb+noun (criar_alerta, buscar_licitacao), some noun+verb (credito_recarregar), many are noun+noun (credito_saldo, alertas_compras, vigia_eventos), and health/api_index are English amid Portuguese names. The set feels less predictable than it could be.
With 19 tools, the server covers several subdomains: search, documents, alerts, watches, billing, and account management. It is a bit heavy and includes optional meta endpoints like api_index and health, but the count is justifiable for the scope.
The surface covers search, purchase details, document extraction, alert creation and matches, watch creation/events, credits, and webhook management. However, there is no way to list, update, or cancel existing alerts or watches, which is a notable lifecycle gap.