Cria um novo contato/cliente. Campos conforme a API oficial (ex.: name, type, cpf/cnpj, email, phone) — envie o restante via extra.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cpf | No | ||
| cnpj | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| No | |||
| extra | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful context about following the official API and using 'extra' for unspecified fields, but it does not disclose side effects, validation behavior, or error conditions.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and then provides essential field guidance. Every word contributes value, with no repetition or filler.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should clarify return values or expected behavior, but it does not. It also leaves out required fields, validation rules, and concrete examples, relying on 'official API' without providing those details. The 'extra' catch-all helps but is not enough for a create operation.
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 lists example fields (name, type, cpf/cnpj, email, phone) and mentions sending the rest via 'extra', which adds some meaning. However, it does not explain formats, requiredness, mutual exclusivity of cpf/cnpj, or how 'extra' should be structured.
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 'Cria um novo contato/cliente' (creates a new contact/customer), using a specific verb and resource. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like advbox_get_customer, advbox_list_customers, and other create_* tools.
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 usage is implied by the verb 'Cria' and the resource 'contato/cliente', but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives or any exclusions. It does not mention when not to use it or compare with sibling create tools.
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.
The advbox_* tools are clearly distinct by resource (customer, lawsuit, transaction, post, movement) and action (create, get, list, update). Overlapping tools like lawsuit_history, lawsuit_movements, and last_movements have clear scoping in descriptions. The platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) are separate and well-defined.
The advbox_* tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_customer, get_lawsuit, list_transactions). The non-advbox tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) use different naming but are auxiliary and have clear names. Minor deviation but overall predictable.
With 26 tools, the set is on the heavy side, but the legal practice domain is broad, covering customers, lawsuits, transactions, posts, and movements, plus platform management tools. Each tool has a defined role, though some could be consolidated (e.g., the multiple movement-related list tools).
Core workflows for customers, lawsuits, and transactions are covered with create/get/list/update, but there are missing operations: no update_customer, no deletes for any resource, no get_post or update_post despite list and create. The settings tool helps discover IDs, but the lifecycle is incomplete.