Remove usuário da empresa (DELETE na API). action: delete. Aceita accounts com 1 entrada.
[Flattened action: delete]
Bulk support: accepts user_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | ||
| accounts | No | ||
| user_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 show destructiveHint=false, but description describes a DELETE operation ('Remove usuário' and 'DELETE na API'), which is inherently destructive. This is a clear contradiction. Description does not add behavioral context beyond indicating deletion.
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?
Description is brief and to the point, covering action, accounts constraint, and bulk support. Could be more structured (e.g., separate lines for params) but no fluff.
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 provided, and description omits return value, prerequisites, or post-condition details. For a destructive tool, more context (e.g., is user permanently removed? any cascade effects?) would improve completeness.
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, description adds value by explaining the 'accounts' parameter accepts only 1 entry and 'user_ids' supports batch execution. This clarifies usage beyond the schema's bare property definitions.
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 specifies the action ('Remove usuário da empresa' and 'DELETE na API') and resource ('user'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'contasimples_user' (likely read-only) and 'contasimples_invite_write_create' (invite creation). The verb 'remove' and scope 'from company' are explicit.
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?
Description mentions bulk support via 'user_ids' and accounts constraint ('Aceita `accounts` com 1 entrada'), but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives. No direct comparison to sibling 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.
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.