Cria um lançamento financeiro (receita ou despesa). Campos conforme a API oficial (ex.: type, value, due_date) via campos nomeados + extra.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| extra | No | ||
| value | No | ||
| due_date | 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 only provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context such as authentication requirements, persistence side effects, validation behavior, or response handling. 'Campos conforme a API oficial' is parameter-related, not a behavioral disclosure.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds field mapping context. Every phrase adds value with no redundancy 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?
This is a create operation with no output schema and sparse annotations. The description leaves significant gaps: no required fields, no field value constraints, no creation-side effects, and no guidance on handling API-specific extra fields. It is minimally viable but incomplete for reliable 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?
The schema has 0% description coverage and no enums or required fields. The description mentions example fields (type, value, due_date) and hints that `extra` holds additional official API fields, and 'receita ou despesa' gives a clue about type values. However, it does not explain formats for value/due_date, constraints, or how extra merges with named fields.
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 lançamento financeiro (receita ou despesa)' – a specific create action on a financial entry/transaction. This distinguishes it from sibling create tools like advbox_create_customer or advbox_create_lawsuit, and from advbox_get_transaction/advbox_list_transactions.
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?
Usage is implied by the verb 'Cria' and the resource, and siblings include update/get/list variations, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred context.
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.