bling_list_accounts
Read-onlyIdempotent
Lista as contas Bling conectadas a este install — id, label.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No |
Bling
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds that it returns id and label, but no further behavioral details (e.g., pagination, sorting, filtering).
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?
Single sentence with no wasted words. Could be structured for easier scanning, but remains concise and front-loaded.
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 and simple tool, the description covers basic purpose but lacks return format details beyond 'id, label'. For a list of accounts, it is minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the only parameter 'account', and the description does not explain its purpose or effect. Baseline for 0% coverage is low; description fails to compensate.
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?
Description clearly states it lists Bling accounts connected to the install, specifying the returned fields (id, label). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list other entity types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings. The description does not mention prerequisites or recommended scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get/list for specific Bling entities (contacts, NFEs, sales orders, products, etc.) and separate platform tools (authenticate, marketplace, etc.). No overlapping functionality.
Naming Consistency4/5
Bling tools follow a consistent 'bling_verb_noun' pattern (e.g., bling_get_contato, bling_list_produtos), while platform tools use simple English names (authenticate, marketplace). The deviation is minor and explainable by the two distinct categories.
Tool Count4/5
22 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range for a single server, but the number is justified by the comprehensive coverage of Bling entities and additional platform utilities. Not excessive.
Completeness2/5
The Bling tools are read-only (list/get only), lacking any create, update, or delete operations. This is a significant gap for a business management integration, limiting the agent's ability to perform full data lifecycle operations.