Lista convites pendentes ou histórico (status, role_id, limit, next_page_start_key). Aceita accounts (agrupa por conta).
Bulk support: accepts role_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| role_id | No | ||
| accounts | No | ||
| role_ids | No | ||
| next_page_start_key | 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 description adds minimal behavioral context beyond mentioning bulk support. The description aligns with annotations and does not contradict them, but it doesn't disclose additional traits like auth requirements or rate limits.
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 extremely concise, using only two sentences to convey purpose, key parameters, and special features like grouping and bulk support. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary 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?
For a read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description should indicate what is returned (e.g., list of invites, pagination details). It mentions next_page_start_key but doesn't explain it as a pagination token or that it appears in the response. The description covers parameters but omits response structure, leaving the agent with incomplete context.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It lists all parameters (status, role_id, limit, next_page_start_key, accounts, role_ids) and implies their roles (e.g., filtering, pagination, grouping), but lacks specifics such as allowed values for status or format requirements. This is insufficient for full parameter understanding.
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 pending invites or history, with filtering by status, role_id, limit, and next_page_start_key. It also mentions grouping by account and bulk support, making the purpose specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like contasimples_invite_write_create.
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 usage hints such as accepting accounts for grouping and role_ids for bulk execution. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool, the sibling names make the read vs write distinction clear. More explicit exclusion criteria would improve this score.
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.
Almost all tools have clear purposes, especially with the contasimples_ prefix. Some overlap between statement and summary, but descriptions differentiate well. The general tools (marketplace, report_bug, etc.) are completely different from the financial ones, which reduces potential confusion.
The domain tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., contasimples_card_write_block). However, the inclusion of general tools like authenticate, connect, marketplace breaks the pattern. This inconsistency lowers the score.
With 24 tools covering authentication, financial operations, and platform utilities, the number is reasonable for a moderately complex MCP server. It doesn't feel excessive or too thin.
The toolset covers key financial operations (balance, bills, cards, statements, summary) and some mutations (block/unblock, create invite, delete user). However, missing CRUD for several entities (e.g., no update user, no create card, no delete invite) leaves gaps. The presence of platform utilities adds breadth but not depth.