Radar noEixo

Create process

create_process

Instancia um processo para um contato, copiando os passos de um template (ou de uma lista de steps passada direto). Use para iniciar o onboarding de um cliente e acompanhar os passos.

Tool call template

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": {
      "contact_id": "<contact_id>"
    },
    "name": "create_process"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`steps`	No	Passos avulsos (se não usar template)
`title`	No	Título do processo (padrão: nome do template)
`due_date`	No	Prazo ISO (opcional)
`contact_id`	Yes	ID do contato (cliente) — via list_contacts
`description`	No	Descrição (opcional)
`template_id`	No	ID do template a copiar (via list_process_templates)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / steps / items / properties / dias

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Dias para concluir a etapa (1–365). A data conta a partir de quando a anterior foi concluída. Omitido = sem prazo.",
+  "type": "number"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / steps / items / properties / responsavel_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Quem responde pela etapa (id de list_team_permissions). Recebe o aviso das 8h quando ela atrasa.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the template-vs-steps sourcing behavior, but says nothing about side effects: whether responsavel_id triggers the 8h delay notice, whether the call is idempotent, or what happens when both template_id and steps are supplied.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and sourcing logic. The trailing "e acompanhar os passos" is mild filler that restates the obvious but does not obscure anything.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a six-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential mechanics and a usage scenario. It leaves gaps an agent would care about: conflict handling between template_id and steps, and what the call returns (a process id for follow-up via update_process_step or get_process).

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns one step more by explaining the either/or relationship between template_id and steps that the schema lists only as two independent optional properties. It does not resolve the precedence question when both are provided.

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?

The description names a specific verb ("Instancia um processo") and resource (a process bound to a contact), and clarifies the two sourcing modes: copying steps from a template or taking a steps list directly. This meaningfully separates it from create_process_template and list_processes, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

"Use para iniciar o onboarding de um cliente" gives a concrete scenario, which is more than nothing. However, it offers no exclusions or routing guidance — nothing says to call create_process_template first when no template exists, or when to prefer passing steps over template_id.

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

All Radar noEixo tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?