Webhooks configurados no Guru. Ações: list (cursor); get (id); activities (id, entregas).
[Flattened action: get]
Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| ids | No | ||
| cursor | 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so it's clearly a safe read operation. The description adds value by noting bulk execution via 'ids' and the 'Flattened action: get' context. It does not contradict annotations and provides some extra behavioral detail.
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 includes a redundant list of actions that are not all applicable, followed by a clarification. It has a blank line separating the actions from the flattened note. This structure adds unnecessary noise and is not optimally front-loaded; a more direct statement of the get action would be clearer.
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?
Given the tool is a simple getter but has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain return values and parameter usage more thoroughly. It omits what the response includes, how cursor works, and what 'account' means. Bulk support is noted but not elaborated (e.g., response format for multiple ids). The description is incomplete for effective invocation.
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 all parameters, but it only partially covers 'id' and 'ids' (via 'get (id)' and bulk support). It does not explain 'cursor' (which is for list action) or 'account'. The parameters are ambiguous for this tool, and the description fails to clarify their roles.
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?
Description states the tool retrieves webhook configurations ('Webhooks configurados no Guru') and specifies the action as 'get (id)' with bulk support via 'ids'. It distinguishes from list and activities by specifying 'Flattened action: get'. However, the inclusion of other actions (list, activities) before the flattened note adds minor confusion, so not a 5.
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 implies this tool is for fetching specific webhooks by id or ids (bulk), but it does not explicitly state when to use it over sibling tools like guru_webhooks_list or guru_webhooks_activities. There is no when-not guidance or direct comparison to alternatives.
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.