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_invitations]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | ||
| data | No | ||
| account | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions 'delete_invitations' and 'delete', implying destructive operations, yet the annotation destructiveHint is false. This is a direct contradiction. Additionally, the description does not disclose side effects, permissions, or any behavioral details beyond the action names. With no annotations to back up safety, this is 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 short but poorly structured. The bracket note '[Flattened action: delete_invitations]' is cryptic and placed at the end. The description lists multiple actions without clarifying which one applies, leading to confusion rather than a clean, front-loaded specification.
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 performs a write operation with no output schema, yet the description fails to specify the exact operation (delete invitations) or the effect on data. It doesn't explain required prerequisites, return values, or error behavior. The ambiguity makes it unusable for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
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 carries the burden. It lists action-parameter pairs (e.g., delete_invitations (code)) but does not explain the meanings of code, data, or account in the context of the flattened action. data is shown for create_invitations but not for delete_invitations, yet it remains in the schema, causing ambiguity about its relevance.
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 'Mutações em e-tickets Guru' and lists multiple actions, but it does not clearly specify that the tool's primary function is to delete invitations. The flattened action note indicates delete_invitations, but the description itself is ambiguous and does not distinguish from sibling tools like guru_etickets_write_delete_check_in or guru_etickets_write_create_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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives. It does not mention that this is for deleting invitations or that other actions are handled by different tools. The list of actions could mislead an agent into thinking the tool can perform any of them, but no criteria or context is given for appropriate usage.
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.