Atualiza valor, vencimento ou status de pagamento de uma transação por ID. Envie só os campos a alterar (nomeados + extra).
Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| ids | No | ||
| extra | No | ||
| value | No | ||
| status | 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 declare readOnlyHint:false, idempotentHint:false, and destructiveHint:false, so the agent already knows this is a non-idempotent write operation. The description adds valuable context about partial updates (only changed fields) and batch execution via ids. No contradictions found.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes the critical usage note about partial updates. The bulk support is a separate, concise sentence. There is no fluff or redundancy, and every element adds value.
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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what updates can be performed, the partial update pattern, and batch support. It explains the id requirement implicitly and covers all parameter groups. It is complete for a straightforward update operation with no output schema or additional constraints.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It maps 'valor' to value, 'vencimento' to due_date, and 'status' to status, explicitly names 'extra' for additional fields, and mentions 'ids' for bulk. It also implies that id is the required identifier. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 verb 'Atualiza' (updates), the resource 'transação' (transaction), and the specific fields it can modify (valor, vencimento, status de pagamento). It also clarifies the operation is by ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_transaction and get_transaction, and from update_lawsuit which targets a different resource.
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 description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Envie só os campos a alterar' explains the partial update pattern, and it notes bulk support via ids. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare against alternatives, but the context is clear that this is for updating existing transactions.
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.