gestaoclick_pagamentos_get
Read-onlyIdempotent
Pagamentos: Visualizar (GET /api/pagamentos/{id}).
Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| ids | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| account | No |
GestãoClick
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true (safe read operation), openWorldHint=false, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the bulk support behavior for the `ids` parameter, which is useful context. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, pagination, or response shape. Given annotations cover safety, a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose (GET /api/pagamentos/{id}) and then a note on bulk support. It is concise and to the point, though it could benefit from slightly more specificity about parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 4 parameters with 0% schema description coverage messy. The description only mentions 'ids' for bulk support but doesn't explain the purpose of 'query' or 'account'. With no output schema and minimal annotation coverage beyond safety flags, this is insufficient for an agent to use effectively in varied scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. The description mentions bulk ids support but does NOT explain what 'query' and 'account' parameters do. The 'id' is obvious from the endpoint, but 'query' and 'account' are ambiguous without additional context. Since there are 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description leaves significant semantic gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Visualizar' (View) with the endpoint path '/pagamentos/{id}', providing a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling CRUD tools by being the GET variant of pagamentos, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling list tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution,' which hints at a usage pattern, but there's no direction on when to use get versus list, or scenarios where one is preferred over the other.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.