Vendas: Gerar parcelas (POST /api/vendas/gerar_parcelas). [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_vendas_gerar_parcelas_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 already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds '[write, altera dados]' which restates the write nature but does not disclose side effects, required authentication, rate limits, or what 'altera dados' concretely means (e.g., creation of records, updates to sales). With annotations covering the basic safe profile, the description adds minimal behavioral context.
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 a single concise line, free of redundant words. It efficiently relays the domain, action, endpoint, and write nature. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, missing critical parameter details, but the structure is clean and front-loaded with the essential purpose.
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 the tool has no output schema and only two opaque parameters, the description offers virtually no guidance for invocation. It lacks details on the request payload format, required fields, expected response, or any error conditions. The description is far from sufficient for an agent to use this tool correctly.
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?
Both parameters ('body' and 'account') have no descriptions in the schema (0% coverage), and the description does not mention them at all. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent without any guidance on what to pass in the body or how to specify the account.
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 states the tool's purpose as 'Vendas: Gerar parcelas' (Sales: Generate installments) and includes the HTTP endpoint. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'gestaoclick_compras_gerar_parcelas_create' by specifying the 'Vendas' context, though it doesn't elaborate on what generating installments entails.
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 usage (generate installments for sales) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like purchase or budget installment tools, nor does it state when not to use it. The 'Vendas' label gives context but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusionary conditions.
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.