Cria um serviço. data é JSON com nome, valor, etc.
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": {
"data": "<data>"
},
"name": "contaazul_service_write"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| account | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / account / descriptionRemoved value: -"Quando o install tem mais de uma empresa Conta Azul: company_id, label, ou parcial. Ver contaazul_list_accounts."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. While annotations indicate it is not read-only and not destructive, the description only confirms creation without discussing side effects, authorization needs, or data impact.
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 very short and front-loads the purpose. However, it lacks structure and could include more details without becoming verbose. It is minimal but not optimally helpful.
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?
Given there is no output schema and only vague parameter hints, the description fails to provide a complete picture. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or required validation, leaving gaps for effective invocation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely explains the 'data' parameter as 'JSON com nome, valor, etc.' and omits the 'account' parameter entirely. This is insufficient for correct parameter use.
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 creates a service ('Cria um serviço'). The verb and resource are specific. However, it does not distinguish from sibling write tools like 'contaazul_product_write' or 'contaazul_contract_write', lacking differentiation.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.
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.