Lista papéis (roles) para convites de usuário. Aceita accounts (agrupa por conta).
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_role"
}
}| 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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds one behavioral nuance (grouping by account) but does not disclose other traits like rate limits or data volume. With annotations covering the base safety profile, this is adequate but not exceptional.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Every word earns its place.
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 simple tool (one optional parameter, no output schema, rich annotations), the description provides enough context: it lists roles and explains the account grouping. It is complete without being verbose.
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 sole parameter 'accounts' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining it allows grouping by account, adding meaning beyond the raw schema definition.
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?
Description clearly states it lists roles for user invites, with an optional accounts parameter to group by account. This is a specific verb+resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like contasimples_invite or 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 implies usage context (listing roles, optionally grouped by account) but does not provide explicit when/when-not or alternatives. It is adequate for a straightforward listing tool but lacks guidance on when not to use it.
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.