Cadastro de clientes e fornecedores (LinxClientesFornec). Filtre por data_inicial/fim, doc_cliente e cnpj_emp.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| cnpj_emp | No | ||
| data_fim | No | ||
| doc_cliente | No | ||
| data_inicial | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "type": "number"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the filtering behavior (by data_inicial/fim, doc_cliente, cnpj_emp), which is useful context, but does not disclose details like default limit, sorting, or response format. Given the annotations, the description adds moderate value beyond them.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately lists the key filters. Every word earns its place, making it an excellent example of brevity.
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 query tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides only partial context. It explains the main filters but omits pagination parameters (limit/offset) and the account parameter, as well as any details about the returned data structure. While the read-only nature is covered by annotations, an agent lacks full information to invoke it correctly without guessing on those unexplained parameters.
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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It names three filter parameters (data_inicial/fim, doc_cliente, cnpj_emp) and clearly indicates they are used for filtering, which adds meaning. However, it ignores limit, offset, and account, leaving those parameters unexplained. Thus, it partially compensates but is incomplete.
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 identifies the resource as 'Cadastro de clientes e fornecedores' (customer and supplier registry) and mentions the underlying object LinxClientesFornec. It conveys a read-oriented purpose (filterable query). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like microvix_lojas or microvix_produtos, though the entity type is distinct enough to avoid confusion.
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 usage for querying customer/supplier data by mentioning filter fields, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. An agent can infer from the resource name, but there is no direct guidance on selecting this over other microvix tools.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct: platform utilities (authenticate, connect, marketplace) have clear separate roles, and microvix_* tools each target a different entity (clientes, lojas, movimento, pedidos, produtos variants, etc.). However, the marketplace tool has multiple sub-functions (search, describe, invoke, install) that could blur boundaries, but its description is thorough enough to prevent confusion.
All tools use consistent snake_case naming. Platform tools are short descriptive words (authenticate, connect, marketplace), while domain-specific tools all follow the 'microvix_entity' pattern (e.g., microvix_clientes_fornec, microvix_produtos). No mixing of conventions or inconsistent verb styles.
With 16 tools, the server is slightly above the ideal range (3-15) but still well-scoped. The platform utilities (6 tools) are necessary for authentication, marketplace interaction, and status; the 10 microvix-* tools cover the core domain tables without bloating. The count is reasonable for a server that combines platform and data query capabilities.
The microvix domain tools provide comprehensive read access to key entities (clientes, lojas, movimento, pedidos, produtos, inventário, vendedores), but there are no write/update tools (e.g., create_cliente, update_produto). For a data query server this may be acceptable, but the absence of CRUD operations is a notable gap if the purpose is to manage Microvix data fully.