Lista despesas de um grupo.
Bulk support: accepts grupo_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| grupo_id | Yes | ||
| grupo_ids | No | ||
| page_size | 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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the bulk execution capability via grupo_ids, which is useful. However, no other behaviors like pagination, ordering, or response details are disclosed, so it adds minimal extra context beyond annotations.
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 concise with zero fluff, front-loading the primary purpose. The bulk support note is appended cleanly. However, it is so short that it leaves out critical parameter context, so it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
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 no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the query object structure, pagination behavior, or what fields are returned. It also lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus easyjur_list_despesas, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's scope.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining parameters. It only mentions bulk support for grupo_ids, but gives no explanation for page, query, page_size. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the 'query' object is ambiguous and could confuse an agent without further detail.
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 states 'Lista despesas de um grupo' (Lists expenses of a group), which is a clear verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from easyjur_list_despesas implicitly via the group qualifier, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions bulk support but does not specify when to choose this over easyjur_list_despesas or other list tools. No exclusions or explicit use cases are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.