connect_mercadopago[demo: deshabilitada] Connects MercadoPago for this business using the BYOA OAuth-redirect model. Primary: returns an authorization URL. Fallback: accepts a production access token directly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accessToken | No | Optional MercadoPago production access token. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations present (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), the description adds useful behavioral context by explaining the OAuth-redirect model and the primary/fallback behavior. It does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing connections, but the annotations already cover the destructive nature, so this is acceptable.
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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the leading '[demo: deshabilitada]' is an irrelevant and confusing prefix that adds noise without helping an agent understand the tool. Removing it would make the description cleaner, but the rest is efficient.
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?
The description adequately covers the primary and fallback modes but leaves out important context for an OAuth flow, such as what to do with the returned authorization URL, whether a callback is required, and what the fallback mode returns after accepting the token. Since there's no output schema, more detail on return values and next steps would be helpful.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly mapping the accessToken parameter to the fallback flow ('accepts a production access token directly'), giving the parameter a functional role beyond its raw format definition.
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 states the tool's purpose: 'Connects MercadoPago for this business using the BYOA OAuth-redirect model.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope combo, and the primary/fallback details further define what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling connect_* tools by naming the specific external service.
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 implies this tool is used for connecting MercadoPago and provides clear guidance on the two invocation modes ('Primary' returns a URL, 'Fallback' accepts a token). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like connect_pedidosya or connection_status, though the name makes it fairly obvious.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as caja_registrar_movimiento vs register_movement, get_payment_intent_status vs open_cobro_status, and adjust_stock vs stock_load. The distinctions are not immediately clear from names/descriptions, causing a high risk of misselection.
Naming is inconsistent: mixes English and Spanish (caja_*, emit_invoice, send_whatsapp_*), and uses different patterns (open_*, get_*, query_*, list_*, etc.). Some names like stock_load and bulk_price_update don't follow a clear verb_noun convention.
50 tools is excessive for most contexts, even for a broad ERP-like domain. Many are UI widgets (open_*) that add clutter and could be consolidated, making the tool set feel heavy and harder to navigate.
The tool set covers many core business functions (products, suppliers, customers, sales, invoicing, shipping, cash register, payments, integrations). However, there are noticeable gaps: purchase requests have only create (no list/update/delete), shipments cannot be updated/cancelled, and sales lack direct update/query by ID.