Lista clientes (GET /v1/clientes). Use alterado_apos pra incremental.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "mercos_list_clientes"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| filters | No | ||
| alterado_apos | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the incremental-filter behavior and confirms the GET endpoint, but does not disclose pagination, response format, or auth needs. This is adequate given the annotations, but not rich.
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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and containing no filler. Every word earns its place, and the incremental tip is efficiently appended.
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 is a simple list operation with three optional parameters and no output schema. The core purpose is clear, but the lack of detail on `account` and `filters` creates gaps in contextual completeness. For a low-complexity read-only tool, this is a minimally viable description, but it could easily include parameter semantics.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only explains `alterado_apos` (for incremental). The other two parameters, `account` and `filters`, are left entirely undocumented, leaving the agent guessing about their format and purpose. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
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 begins with 'Lista clientes' (lists clients), a specific verb+resource pairing that clearly states the tool's function. The endpoint reference '(GET /v1/clientes)' further clarifies the operation, and the resource distinguishes it from sibling list tools like mercos_list_pedidos or mercos_list_produtos.
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 phrase 'Use `alterado_apos` pra incremental' provides a concrete usage guideline for a specific scenario (incremental sync). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives for creating or updating clients, nor when not to use this tool, so it falls short of the top score.
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.