Inventário/saldo de estoque por código de barras (LinxProdutosInventario). Informe data_inventario e cnpj_emp.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| cnpj_emp | No | ||
| data_inventario | 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 that it queries by barcode and expects specific parameters, but doesn't disclose pagination, return format, or any side effects beyond what annotations imply. Given the low bar set by comprehensive annotations, this is adequate 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the purpose and the key parameters to provide. It is efficient with no wasted words. The only downside is that it is so terse it sacrifices necessary detail, but as a conciseness and structure score, it is well-organized.
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?
With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no required fields, the description is inadequate. It mentions 'por código de barras' but no parameter exists for a barcode, creating a mismatch between description and schema. It also lacks any explanation of return values, pagination, or the role of account/limit/offset. The agent cannot confidently call this tool without additional research.
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%. The description names two parameters (data_inventario and cnpj_emp) but does not explain their format, purpose, or why they are needed, and completely omits limit, offset, and account. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool with no other documentation.
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 provides inventory/stock balance by barcode, which is a specific resource and action. It distinguishes it from sibling tools like microvix_produtos (products) and microvix_movimento (movements) by the 'saldo de estoque' and 'por código de barras' phrasing. However, it doesn't explicitly state what data is returned, so a perfect score is not warranted.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like microvix_produtos or microvix_produtos_detalhes. It only instructs to 'Informe data_inventario e cnpj_emp', which is parameter guidance, not usage context. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions are present.
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.