CANCELA uma cobrança já emitida (boleto/pix/link deixa de ser pagável). Use quando a cobrança foi gerada errada e ainda não foi paga. Passe o id da cobrança (de contaazul_generate_charge ou contaazul_get_charge), NÃO o id da parcela.
Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| ids | No | ||
| account | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate destructiveness (destructiveHint=true). The description adds value by explaining that cancellation makes the charge non-payable and restricts use to unpaid charges, providing side-effect and precondition context. No contradiction with annotations.
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 compact and front-loaded, starting with the core action. Each sentence serves a purpose: action, usage condition, id semantics, and bulk support. No filler or redundancy.
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 covers purpose, usage condition, and key parameter semantics, which is sufficient for selection and basic invocation. It lacks details about the `account` parameter and potential error cases (e.g., already-paid charges), but these are not critical given the tool's straightforward nature and annotation-rich context.
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 description explains the key `id` parameter in detail, including its origin and what it should NOT be (installment id), and mentions `ids` for bulk execution. However, it does not explain the `account` parameter or clarify the relationship between `id` and `ids` (e.g., mutual exclusivity). With 0% schema coverage, this is a partial compensation.
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 action 'CANCELA' and the resource 'cobrança já emitida', with a concrete effect ('boleto/pix/link deixa de ser pagável'). It distinguishes from related tools by specifying it cancels charges, not installments or sales.
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use: 'quando a cobrança foi gerada errada e ainda não foi paga', including a clear exclusion (only if not yet paid). It also gives practical guidance on which id to pass and warns against using the installment id. No alternative tools are named, but the context is well-defined.
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 are easily confused: person_write_create/person_write_update and sale_write_create/sale_write_update duplicate the same operation with an internal action flag, and authenticate vs connect both deal with connection setup. Also, list_accounts (company installs) and list_financial_accounts (bank accounts) have similar names but different meanings.
Naming patterns vary widely: verb_noun (create_budget, list_people) is mixed with noun_verb (contract_write, person_delete, product_write). The contaazul_ prefix is applied inconsistently, and standalone names like authenticate, connect, marketplace, and toolkit_info break the pattern. Flattened action pairs add redundant, non-idiomatic names.
With 57 tools, this server exceeds the 50+ threshold for an extreme count. The tool list is bloated with generic platform tools (authenticate, marketplace, report_bug) alongside dozens of domain-specific ones, making it overwhelming for agents to parse and select from.
The Conta Azul domain is well represented: people, products, services, sales, budgets, contracts, financial accounts, receivables/payables, settlements, charges, invoices, and transfers all have read/create/list operations, and most have update/cancel/delete. Minor gaps like product update/delete or service update exist due to API limitations, but the core workflows are covered.