Cria convite: action create com role_id e email. Aceita accounts com 1 entrada.
[Flattened action: create]
Bulk support: accepts role_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | |||
| role_id | Yes | ||
| accounts | No | ||
| role_ids | 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 indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Bulk support' behavior but does not disclose side effects (e.g., duplicate handling) or required permissions. It is adequate but not rich.
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 very concise (three sentences), front-loaded with the core action, and includes a parenthetical note and bulk clarification without redundancy.
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?
The description covers main parameters and bulk support, but lacks any mention of return values (no output schema) or error conditions. For a 4-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, it is moderately complete but has gaps.
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 coverage, the description compensates by explaining that role_id and email are primary, accounts holds a single entry, and role_ids supports batching. However, it does not detail formats, constraints, or valid values, leaving ambiguity.
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 creates an invite ('Cria convite') with specific action 'create', using role_id and email. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'contasimples_invite' (which likely lists invites) by indicating this is the write variant.
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 context: it accepts a single account entry and supports bulk creation via role_ids. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use, though the name and purpose imply differentiation.
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.