Mutações em transações Guru (mexe em dinheiro, irreversível). Ações: refund (id, reembolsa); chargeback (id); reissue (id, reemite boleto); update_buyer (id + data); generate_invoice (id, NF-e BR).
[Flattened action: reissue]
Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| ids | No | ||
| 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 states the operation is 'irreversível' and touches money, but this contradicts the destructiveHint: false annotation. It mentions bulk support but lacks details on side effects, such as changes to transaction status, and fails to disclose any auth requirements or rate limits.
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 not concise because it includes a list of all possible actions, which are irrelevant for a tool named reissue. While it front-loads key information about mutating money and irreversibility, the extraneous list and the flattened action note add clutter without focusing on the specific operation.
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 explain what reissue does (e.g., reissue a boleto), what inputs are required beyond id, and what the outcome is. It mentions bulk support but no details, and without an output schema, it should describe expected return values, which it does not.
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 coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters, but it only mentions 'id' in the context of actions and leaves 'ids', 'data', and 'account' unexplained. No formats, constraints, or usage examples are provided for the reissue action.
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 lists multiple actions (refund, chargeback, reissue, update_buyer, generate_invoice) but the tool name and flattened action indicate it is specifically for reissue. This ambiguity confuses the tool's primary purpose, making it unclear whether it handles all these actions or just reissue.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools like guru_transactions_write_refund or guru_transactions_write_chargeback. It fails to state that this tool is for reissuing boletos specifically, nor does it provide scenarios where reissue is appropriate.
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.