Campos extras de produtos: Cadastrar (POST /api/atributos_produtos). [write, altera dados]
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": "gestaoclick_atributos_produtos_create"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| account | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate this is a write operation, which the description's '[write, altera dados]' tag reinforces. However, the description does not add behavioral details such as whether existing extra fields are overwritten, how IDs are generated, or error handling. The tag is redundant with the annotations, providing minimal additional transparency.
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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose and endpoint. The '[write, altera dados]' tag is concise, though it adds little beyond the annotations. It avoids unnecessary fluff and is easy to scan.
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?
With no output schema and only two parameters that lack descriptions, the description is incomplete for an agent to use the tool correctly. It does not explain how to structure the request body, what fields are required, or what the response looks like. The write nature is acknowledged, but practical usage details are missing.
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 input schema lists only 'body' (string) and 'account' (string) with no description. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions the endpoint and operation. It does not explain what 'body' should contain (e.g., JSON structure for product extra fields) or what 'account' represents (likely an account identifier). This is a significant gap.
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 'Cadastrar' (create) for 'Campos extras de produtos' (extra fields for products) and specifies the endpoint 'POST /api/atributos_produtos'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other entities or operations, though it could be more explicit about what 'produtos' refers to in context.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not differentiate from other '_create' siblings beyond the product entity, nor does it mention any preconditions or typical scenarios. The sibling tools list shows multiple create operations, but no contextual cues are given.
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.