Finalizar atendimento (POST /api/v1/conversations/{id}/finish). [write, altera dados]
Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| ids | No | ||
| body | No | ||
| account | 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?
The description adds '[write, altera dados]' and the HTTP method, explicitly signaling a state-changing operation, which is useful beyond the annotations' readOnlyHint=false. It also discloses batch execution behavior via ids. It does not detail side effects or idempotency, but the annotations already cover idempotentHint=false.
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?
Two sentences with the endpoint and write semantics front-loaded, followed by a useful bulk-support note. No filler or 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?
For a simple finish action with annotations present, the description covers endpoint, write semantics, and batch capability. However, it leaves the body/account parameters undocumented and gives no guidance on response or prerequisites, so it is only minimally complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain the parameters, but it only clarifies that 'ids' enables batched execution. The 'body' and 'account' parameters remain completely unexplained, and 'id' is only implied by the endpoint.
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 identifies the action as 'Finalizar atendimento' (finish service) and gives the exact endpoint POST /api/v1/conversations/{id}/finish, making the resource and operation unambiguous. It distinguishes this from sibling conversation tools like list and message creation by naming the finish action.
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 the tool is for closing/finishing a conversation and notes bulk support, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusion conditions. The usage context is inferable from the endpoint but not fully specified.
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.
Every tool maps to a distinct resource-action pair (e.g., leads_create vs businesses_create). Even nested tools like leads_activities_list are clearly scoped from general activities_list. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
All resource tools follow the exact pattern 'datacrazy_<resource>_<action>' with actions being create, get, list, patch, update, delete, plus a few composite verbs like finish_create or actions_win_create. The naming is uniform and predictable.
70 tools is far beyond the usual 3-15 range for an MCP server, making it overwhelming and unwieldy for agents. Although the scope is broad (full CRM), the sheer count exceeds the recommended threshold for effective tool discovery.
Most resources have full CRUD coverage (leads, activities, tags, lists, products, businesses, business_loss_reasons). Some gaps exist: attendants only have get/list, conversations lack delete/update, and pipelines are read-only. These are minor and workable, but not complete lifetime coverage.