Mutações em listas de bloqueio Guru. Ações: create (data); update (id + data); delete (id).
[Flattened action: update]
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?
The description adds useful behavioral details beyond the annotations: it indicates the operation is a mutation, lists parameter patterns for create/update/delete, and mentions bulk support via 'ids'. However, it does not disclose side effects, whether updates are partial or full replacements, authorization requirements, or error behavior. The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds action-specific context. No direct contradiction with annotations is found because the '[Flattened action: update]' clarifies the destructive delete action is not the primary behavior of this tool.
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 compact (two short paragraphs plus a note) and conveys core information without fluff. The structure with action list and bulk support note is reasonably organized, though the '[Flattened action: update]' line feels like an artifact and adds minor confusion. Each sentence contributes value, so it earns a high but not perfect score.
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?
The tool is a write/update operation with a free-form data object and bulk execution, but the description lacks critical context: what fields the data object should contain, whether the update replaces the entire record or just provided fields, what happens if the id does not exist, authentication/permission requirements, and return value/errors. With no output schema and minimal annotations, this is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in non-trivial scenarios.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It does explain that update uses 'id + data', and bulk execution accepts 'ids', covering three of the four parameters. However, 'account' is never mentioned, and the content of 'data' is left to the schema's generic object type. The mapping is helpful but not detailed enough to fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 performs mutations on Guru blocklists and lists create/update/delete actions, but then adds '[Flattened action: update]' to indicate this instance is for update. This is confusing because it initially seems to support all three actions, making the actual purpose (update) ambiguous. The resource (blocklists) is clear, but the specific verb is muddled by the conflicting action list.
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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the sibling write_create or write_delete tools. The description lists all three actions but does not say 'use this tool to update; use write_create to create; use write_delete to delete'. The reliance on the tool name and '[Flattened action: update]' is implicit, not explicit guidance.
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.