gestaoclick_pagamentos_update
Pagamentos: Editar (PUT /api/pagamentos/{id}). [write, altera dados]
Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| ids | No | ||
| body | 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 indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and the description confirms 'altera dados'. The bulk support note adds extra context, but the description does not disclose other behaviors like partial failures in bulk operations or whether the full resource is replaced or merged. With annotations covering the write nature, the bar is lower but still some added context is missing.
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 concise with a clear header and one extra line for bulk support. It is front-loaded and efficient, but the lack of parameter detail makes it less useful, which slightly reduces the score from perfect.
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?
With 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions bulk support but omits the essential 'body' parameter and how to construct the update data. The tool's complexity is moderate, and the description leaves significant operational gaps.
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 carries full responsibility for parameter explanation. It only mentions 'ids' for bulk support, leaving 'id', 'body', and 'account' unexplained. The 'body' parameter is likely the update payload, but the description does not say what format or fields it should contain.
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 the tool edits payments via PUT /api/pagamentos/{id}, which is a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from create/delete/get/list tools for payments, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from them.
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 mentions bulk support but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create or delete. It lacks context on prerequisites, such as needing an existing payment ID, and does not clarify when bulk execution is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.