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: delete]
| 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?
The description does not disclose the effects or side effects of the delete operation, such as irreversibility, required permissions, or what happens to related data. Additionally, the annotation destructiveHint is false, which directly contradicts the delete action implied by the tool name and flattened action, making the description misleading.
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 overly broad, enumerating multiple actions that are not specific to this tool, which introduces redundancy and confusion. While short in length, the content lacks focus and structure, making it less concise than it could be if it simply stated 'Deletes an e-ticket by code.'
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 description fails to provide essential context for an agent to use the tool correctly, such as the exact operation performed, the required inputs, or any edge cases. Given the tool's apparent simplicity (delete by code), the description is incomplete and leaves too much ambiguity, especially with the misleading list of unrelated actions.
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?
The input schema defines three parameters (code, data, account) but the description provides no explanation of their meaning or usage. For a delete action, it's unclear why 'data' and 'account' are present, and no examples or constraints are given. The parameter coverage is incomplete and does not compensate for the minimal 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 is vague about the tool's specific purpose, listing multiple actions (do_check_in, delete_check_in, create_invitations, etc.) without clarifying that this tool is specifically for deleting e-tickets. The name and 'Flattened action: delete' hint at the purpose, but the description does not clearly distinguish it from sibling e-ticket mutation tools.
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 many sibling tools for e-ticket operations (e.g., guru_etickets_write_create_invitations, guru_etickets_write_delete_check_in). The description lacks any contextual hints about appropriate usage scenarios, prerequisites, or 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.
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.