Lista notas fiscais eletrônicas (GET /nfe). Paginado. Filtros: dataEmissaoInicial/Final (AAAA-MM-DD), situacao, tipo, numeroLoja.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tipo | No | ||
| limite | No | ||
| pagina | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| situacao | No | ||
| numeroLoja | No | ||
| dataEmissaoFinal | No | ||
| dataEmissaoInicial | 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 idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds that it is paginated, which is useful behavioral context. No contradictions.
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 packs essential information: purpose, HTTP method, pagination, and key filters. It is concise and front-loaded, though some structure could improve readability.
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 8 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description should provide more context. It misses details on pagination parameters and does not describe the return format, which is needed for a list tool.
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 must explain parameters. It mentions 5 of 8 parameters (dataEmissaoInicial/Final, situacao, tipo, numeroLoja) but omits pagination parameters (limite, pagina) and the account parameter, which are likely important for correct usage.
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 tool lists electronic invoices (notas fiscais eletrônicas) and specifies the HTTP endpoint (GET /nfe). It distinguishes from siblings like bling_list_contatos or bling_list_produtos by naming the specific 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 lists available filters (dataEmissaoInicial/Final, situacao, tipo, numeroLoja) implying usage context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bling_get_nfe or other list tools.
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.