Mutações em listas de bloqueio Guru. Ações: create (data); update (id + data); delete (id).
[Flattened action: delete]
Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| ids | No | ||
| data | No | ||
| account | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description confirms it is a mutation tool. However, it does not disclose important details such as whether deletion is permanent, soft-delete behavior, permission requirements, or error handling. The bulk support note is helpful but insufficient for a delete operation that may have irreversible consequences.
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 concise and fits in a few sentences, but the structure is awkward. It starts with a vague statement ('Mutações em listas de bloqueio Guru'), then lists actions, then mentions 'Flattened action: delete' and bulk support. The information is not front-loaded or clearly organized, making it harder to parse quickly.
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?
For a delete-specific tool (given the name and siblings), the description unnecessarily introduces create and update actions, which is misleading. It also lacks information about return values, idempotency (annotations say false), and what happens to existing data. The bulk support note is useful but does not compensate for the missing clarity on the tool's primary purpose.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It partially maps parameters: create uses 'data', update uses 'id'+'data', delete uses 'id', and bulk uses 'ids'. However, it does not explain the 'account' parameter at all, and the mappings are implied rather than explicit. The description adds moderate value but leaves significant gaps.
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 states it handles mutations in Guru blocklists and lists create/update/delete actions, but the tool name and sibling tools (guru_blocklists_write_create, guru_blocklists_write_update) clearly indicate this is specifically for deletion. The description fails to clearly state that this tool is for delete operations only, instead listing all actions ambiguously. The phrase 'Flattened action: delete' is confusing rather than clarifying.
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 the sibling create/update tools. It does not mention that for creating blocklists one should use guru_blocklists_write_create, or for updating use guru_blocklists_write_update. The description lists all three actions, making it unclear which tool should be chosen for a given operation.
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.
The tool names themselves are distinct (e.g., guru_subscriptions_get vs guru_subscriptions_activities), but the descriptions for each resource are identical except for a '[Flattened action: X]' tag, listing all possible actions. This repetition can confuse agents into selecting the wrong tool, especially since many tools share the same description body. The naming is clear but the descriptive overlap undermines disambiguation.
The majority of tools follow a consistent pattern: guru_<resource>_<action> for reads and guru_<resource>_write_<action> for writes. However, there are outliers like 'authenticate', 'connect', 'marketplace', 'report_bug', etc., which break the pattern. Within the Guru API itself, the naming is highly predictable, but the occasional non-Guru tool reduces overall consistency.
With 101 tools, the server is grossly over-scoped. The API has been fragmented into a separate tool for every action across many resources (e.g., subscriptions alone have 15+ tools). This is far beyond the typical MCP server size and makes the tool list overwhelming and impractical for agents to navigate. The extreme granularity offers no benefit over a smaller, well-organized set.
The tool set covers a wide range of operations: CRUD for contacts, subscriptions, transactions, products, coupons, webhooks, and more, including write actions like refunds, chargebacks, and subscription modifications. The domain appears well-covered, though some resources lack create operations (e.g., no create subscription) and there are a few gaps like missing explicit update for transactions. Overall, the coverage is thorough for the stated API surface.