Lista contas a pagar (GET /contas/pagar). Paginado. Filtros: dataEmissaoInicial/Final, dataVencimentoInicial/Final (AAAA-MM-DD), situacao, idContato.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limite | No | ||
| pagina | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| situacao | No | ||
| idContato | No | ||
| dataEmissaoFinal | No | ||
| dataEmissaoInicial | No | ||
| dataVencimentoFinal | No | ||
| dataVencimentoInicial | 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context: the tool is paginated and supports multiple filters. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful extra behavior info beyond structured fields.
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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Lista contas a pagar') followed by endpoint, pagination indicator, and filter list. Every part adds value with no redundancy or wasted words.
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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's basic purpose and key filters but lacks details on pagination parameters (limite, pagina), the account parameter, and expected return format. Annotations provide safety assurance, but the description could better fully specify usage.
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 six filter parameters (dataEmissaoInicial/Final, dataVencimentoInicial/Final, situacao, idContato) but omits 'limite', 'pagina', and 'account'. While it adds meaning for the mentioned parameters, it does not cover all 9 params, leaving some undocumented.
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 it lists 'contas a pagar' (accounts payable) with the specific endpoint GET /contas/pagar. This distinguishes it from its sibling 'bling_list_contas_receber' (accounts receivable), providing a clear resource and verb.
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 mentions pagination and filter parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bling_list_contas_receber'. Usage context is implied by the name, but no exclusions or when-not guidance is provided.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.