Lista conexões Conta Simples (empresas) vinculadas a este install — id, label e apelido de exibição.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "contasimples_list_accounts"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accounts | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds value by specifying the output fields (id, label, display nickname) and scoping to 'this install', which aids in understanding the response.
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 verb and resource. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could benefit from structured formatting (e.g., bullet points for outputs).
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must compensate by detailing return values and edge cases. While it lists some output fields, it fails to explain the 'accounts' parameter, pagination, or limits, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.
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 schema has a single optional array parameter 'accounts' with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain its purpose or behavior, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use it effectively.
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 Conta Simples connections (companies) linked to the install, specifying the returned fields (id, label, display nickname). The verb 'lista' and resource 'conexões' are specific, and no sibling tool directly competes.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like contasimples_balance or contasimples_bill. The description lacks explicit context or exclusion criteria, forcing the agent to infer usage.
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.