Inclui produto(s) (POST /v1/produtos). data = objeto ou array de produtos.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"data": "<data>"
},
"name": "mercos_create_produto"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| account | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are all false, so the description carries some burden. It adds the HTTP method and clarifies that 'data' can be an object or array, which goes beyond the schema's string type. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or error behavior, making it minimally transparent.
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 a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core action and the data format efficiently.
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?
For a creation tool with no output schema and limited annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not mention the 'account' parameter, expected response, required product fields, or error handling. The tool feels underspecified for practical use.
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 must explain parameters. It partially compensates by explaining 'data' (object or array of products) but ignores 'account' entirely. The mismatch between the schema's string type and the description's object/array is not reconciled, leaving room for confusion.
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 clearly states the tool includes/adds product(s) via POST to /v1/produtos, which distinguishes it from update and list siblings. It uses a specific verb and resource, though 'inclui' could be more explicit about creating new products.
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 alternatives like mercos_update_produto or mercos_list_produtos. It lacks any contextual cues, prerequisites, or exclusions.
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.