Mutações em e-tickets Guru. Ações: do_check_in (code, valida entrada); delete_check_in (code); create_invitations (code + data); delete_invitations (code); delete (code).
[Flattened action: create_invitations]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | ||
| 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 already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds 'Mutations' but does not explain side effects of creating invitations, required permissions, or what data means. The listing of delete actions is confusing and could imply destructive behavior, though the flattened action suggests they are not all available. No annotation contradiction is flagged because the flattened action identifies create_invitations as the actual operation, but transparency is weak.
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 short and front-loaded with 'Mutations,' but the multi-action list and bracket note create noise and ambiguity. It could be a single focused sentence about create_invitations. It is not as clean or purposeful as a well-structured two-sentence description.
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?
With 3 parameters, a nested data object, no output schema, and no enum constraints, the description should provide more operational context. It does not describe return values, error conditions, or the data object's structure. The sibling tools show a rich domain, but this description does not situate the tool within it.
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%, so the description must compensate. It only repeats 'code + data' from the action list and omits 'account' entirely. It does not define what code refers to, the expected shape of data, or how account is used. This is insufficient for a tool with a nested-object parameter.
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 identifies the tool as performing mutations on Guru e-tickets and mentions create_invitations with code+data, but it opens with a broad list of five actions, making the primary purpose ambiguous. It does not clearly state 'creates invitations' as a standalone behavior or distinguish it from sibling tools like guru_etickets_write_delete_invitations.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for creating invitations, when to prefer it over guru_etickets_write_delete_invitations or guru_etickets_write_do_check_in, or any prerequisites or context. The 'flattened action' note is the only hint.
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.