Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Arrumou Neural

by io.github.brunoreisportela
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Trocar habitação

change_reservation_room
Destructive

Move a estadia para outra habitação disponível. Exige aprovação.

Escopo: reservations:write · Risco: consequential (prévia + aprovação do usuário obrigatória) · Efeitos: Atualiza a habitação e registra atividade. · INDISPONÍVEL nesta autorização (escopo não concedido ou papel sem o módulo)

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "habitation_id": "<habitation_id>"
    },
    "name": "change_reservation_room"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
approval_idNoId de uma aprovação já decidida pelo usuário para esta mesma ação. Omita para receber a prévia e o link de aprovação.
habitation_idYes
idempotency_keyNoChave de idempotência escolhida pelo cliente; repetir a chave com os mesmos dados devolve o mesmo resultado.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description adds real context beyond them: required scope (reservations:write), risk class 'consequential', mandatory user approval, and the side effect of registering an activity. It stops short of saying what is released or recalculated on the previous habitation (rates, housekeeping, blocks).

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?

The core action is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact metadata line covering scope, risk and effects. Slightly dense but no filler; the unavailability notice is terse and useful.

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 destructive, approval-gated mutation with no output schema, the description covers the approval flow and side effects well. It omits preconditions (e.g. reservation status, what happens to the vacated habitation) that an agent would need to avoid a failed or half-understood call.

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?

Coverage is 50%: approval_id and idempotency_key are documented in the schema, while id and habitation_id have no descriptions. The description implies habitation_id is the target habitation and reinforces the approval parameter, which is helpful, but it adds no format or constraint detail for the two undocumented 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?

States a specific verb+resource combination: moving a stay to another available habitation, which is clearly distinct from changing dates or cancelling. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative (e.g. change_reservation_dates), but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

"Exige aprovação" plus the risk metadata ("prévia + aprovação do usuário obrigatória") tell the agent the two-step approval flow and that a bare call returns a preview rather than performing the move. The "INDISPONÍVEL nesta autorização" note is a strong do-not-call signal when the scope is missing, though no explicit alternative tool is named.

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

All Arrumou Neural toolsInspect
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