Cadastro de vendedores (LinxVendedores). Filtre por data_upd_inicial/fim, cod_vendedor e cnpj_emp.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| cnpj_emp | No | ||
| cod_vendedor | No | ||
| data_upd_fim | No | ||
| data_upd_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 carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), lowering the burden. The description adds the concrete table name (LinxVendedores) and filter scope, which is useful. It doesn't contradict the annotations, but it adds no detail on pagination, return format, or per-account behavior beyond what annotations imply — a modest but non-trivial contribution.
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?
Two tight sentences with the resource identified up front and filters following. No filler or redundant restatement of the name. Could be marginally improved by ordering the most-used filters first, but the structure is efficient and front-loaded.
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 7-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It omits the account semantics (critical given the multi-account sibling microvix_list_accounts), the date format for the data_upd_* filters, and pagination behavior. While annotations cover the safety profile, the operational details an agent needs to call it correctly are missing.
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 must compensate across 7 parameters. It names four filter fields (data_upd_inicial, data_upd_fim, cod_vendedor, cnpj_emp) and marks them as filters, adding some meaning. But it says nothing about limit/offset, the account parameter, or the date format expected — a material gap given zero structured documentation for all 7 params.
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 names the resource explicitly (Cadastro de vendedores / LinxVendedores) and distinguishes it from siblings like microvix_clientes_fornec and microvix_produtos. However, it lacks an explicit action verb (e.g., 'list', 'query', 'get') — the noun 'Cadastro' plus the filter instruction implies a listing operation, leaving the exact behavior slightly implicit.
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 tells the agent which parameters to filter by (data_upd_inicial/fim, cod_vendedor, cnpj_emp) but gives no guidance on when to select this tool over its siblings, no prerequisites (e.g., whether an account must be connected first, given the account parameter and microvix_list_accounts sibling), and no exclusions. Sibling differentiation is absent.
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.