Skip to main content
Glama

Conta Azul MCP

by io.github.douglac

contaazul_person_write_update

Cria ou atualiza uma pessoa. action=create: requer nome, tipo_pessoa e (cpf|cnpj) — passe os campos via data (JSON). action=update: requer id e APENAS os campos a alterar em data (JSON) — a tool lê o cadastro atual e mescla (update parcial; campo com valor null limpa). Enums de escrita: tipo_pessoa = Física|Jurídica|Estrangeira; perfis = [{"tipo_perfil":"Cliente"|"Fornecedor"|"Transportadora"}] (variações de caixa/acento são normalizadas). No update, o Conta Azul valida o cadastro INTEIRO e pode exigir campos que o registro ainda não tem (ex.: codigo, rg, data_nascimento e inscricoes para pessoa Física) — o erro retornado diz qual falta; inclua-o no data.

[Flattened action: update]

Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
idsNo
dataYes
accountNo

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description expands on this by detailing partial update behavior (merge, null clears), validation on entire record, and bulk execution. It does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing data, but the merge behavior is well explained.

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 description is structured with clear sections for create, update, enums, and bulk support. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Slightly verbose but each sentence adds necessary detail. Could be slightly more concise by grouping related information.

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?

Given no output schema, the description does not mention return values or response format. It covers input behavior comprehensively but lacks information on what the tool returns after execution. Also, the `account` parameter is undocumented. For a complex write tool, some output info would be helpful.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning to `data` (JSON with required/enum fields), `id` (for update), and `ids` (for bulk). However, the `account` parameter is not explained at all, leaving a gap.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states it creates or updates a person, specifying required fields for each action (create: nome, tipo_pessoa, cpf/cnpj; update: id and changes). It distinguishes from sibling tools like contaazul_person_write_create and contaazul_person_delete by covering both create and update in one tool, and mentions bulk support.

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?

Provides explicit internal guidelines: for create, require specific fields via data; for update, require id and only changed fields. Warns about validation on update requiring missing fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool contaazul_person_write_create, which may cause confusion about which tool to use for create operations.

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

All Conta Azul MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

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 Consistency2/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources