Lista contas a receber (GET /contas/receber). 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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: it's a GET request (read-only), paginated, and supports date filters with specific format requirements (AAAA-MM-DD). This provides useful context beyond annotations.
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 main purpose and then lists filters and pagination. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or extraneous information.
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 has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description explains filters and pagination but lacks details on the situacao values, the meaning of idContato, and the structure of the response. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.
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 compensates by naming most parameters (dataEmissaoInicial/Final, dataVencimentoInicial/Final, situacao, idContato) and specifying date format. Pagination parameters (limite, pagina) are implied by 'Paginado' but not named explicitly. Overall, it adds significant meaning.
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 'Lista contas a receber' (list accounts receivable) and includes the HTTP endpoint GET /contas/receber. It distinguishes from the sibling tool bling_list_contas_pagar (accounts payable) by the resource name and context.
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 lists available filters and pagination, indicating the tool is meant for listing accounts receivable with optional filters. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bling_list_contas_pagar or provide conditions where it should not be used.
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.