getnet_list_accounts
Lista os lojistas (seller_id) Getnet conectados a este install — id, label.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No |
Lista os lojistas (seller_id) Getnet conectados a este install — id, label.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | 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, destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context about scope ('connected to this install') and return fields, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination or effects of the optional parameter.
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 sentence that communicates the core function without unnecessary words. It is efficiently front-loaded.
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's simplicity (list, one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but missing details about the 'account' parameter and whether the list is paginated or filtered. The term 'this install' is ambiguous.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'account' parameter. The tool description focuses on the overall function but leaves the parameter's purpose ambiguous.
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 action (list) and resource (Getnet merchants/lojistas) and distinguishes from sibling tools like getnet_get_card and getnet_list_customers. It also specifies the returned fields (id, label).
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or limitations. The description lacks context for decision-making.
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.