Skip to main content
Glama

Vigiar compra

vigiar_compra

Vigia uma compra (precisa do token edm_…): fotografa agora e registra eventos de retificação, documento novo, suspensão, prazo adiado e valor, mais avisos de prazo. A primeira é grátis; as seguintes custam até 30 dias após o encerramento. A primeira vigia ativa é grátis (FRANQUIA_VIGIAS); as seguintes custam PRECO_VIGIA até 30 dias após o encerramento. As verificações são periódicas; confira a data da última verificação na vigia. Avisos prazo_impugnacao (no dia) e prazo_proposta (24 h antes) saem uma vez cada.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
canalNopull, webhook ou email (padrão pull)pull
destinoNoURL https (webhook); ignorado no pull e no email (vai para o e-mail da conta)
compra_idYesid da compra (vem da busca)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / destino / description
      Previous value: -"URL https (webhook) ou e-mail (email)"New value: +"URL https (webhook); ignorado no pull e no email (vai para o e-mail da conta)"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / canal / default
      Added value: +"pull"
    • addedInput schema / properties / canal / enum
      Added value: +[
      +  "pull",
      +  "webhook",
      +  "email"
      +]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With readOnlyHint=false the description correctly signals a state-creating operation, and it goes beyond annotations by disclosing the auth requirement (edm_ token), the free-first/subsequent-paid quota model with a 30-day window, periodic check cadence, and the one-shot nature of prazo notifications. It stops short of saying how to inspect or remove a vigia (the vigia_eventos sibling is never referenced).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The pricing statement is stated twice in near-identical form ('A primeira é grátis; as seguintes custam…' then 'A primeira vigia ativa é grátis (FRANQUIA_VIGIAS); as seguintes custam PRECO_VIGIA…'), which is pure waste. The token requirement is also embedded mid-sentence rather than front-loaded, weakening scanability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining what events are registered and how notifications behave, plus cost and auth. For a 3-param mutation it is largely complete, with only the retrieval/removal path via sibling tools left unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so canal, destino, and compra_id are already documented in the schema, fixing the baseline at 3. The description adds only the token requirement and no additional syntax or format detail for the three parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clear specific verb+resource: 'Vigia uma compra', and it enumerates exactly what it watches for (retificação, documento novo, suspensão, prazo adiado, valor, avisos de prazo). It does not, however, contrast itself with plausible siblings like criar_alerta, alertas_compras, or vigia_eventos, so an agent isn't told which monitoring tool to pick.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states a precondition ('precisa do token edm_…') and cost/quota behavior, which is genuine usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not or any routing to the alert-related siblings. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources