Leitura de clientes da loja Nuvemshop. Ações:
list: clientes paginados (params: page, per_page, q, created_at_min, updated_at_min).
get: cliente por id (requer customer_id).
[Flattened action: list]
Bulk support: accepts customer_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| per_page | No | ||
| customer_id | No | ||
| customer_ids | No | ||
| created_at_min | No | ||
| updated_at_min | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context like pagination (paginados) and bulk support via customer_ids, which is useful. However, the action list (including get) is potentially misleading since the tool is primarily for listing, and the true behavior (idempotent read) is already clear from annotations.
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 relatively short but includes a confusing 'Ações:' block and a redundant note about flattened action. The mix of Portuguese and English adds unnecessary complexity. While not excessively long, it could be more streamlined and clearer.
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?
Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description should provide more completeness. It does not describe the return format, pagination behavior, error handling, or sorting. The bulk support mention lacks details on limits or concurrency. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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. It lists some parameters (page, per_page, q, created_at_min, updated_at_min, customer_id, customer_ids) but does not explain their types, formats (e.g., date format for created_at_min), or the purpose of the 'account' parameter. This leaves significant gaps for an 8-parameter tool.
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 states 'Leitura de clientes' (reading customers), clearly indicating the resource and action. It lists list and get actions, but the tool name and flattened action indicate the primary purpose is listing. The sibling tool 'nuvemshop_customers_get' exists, so the description could be clearer about this tool's scope.
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 mentions parameters for list and get actions but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the sibling 'nuvemshop_customers_get'. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice. Bulk support is mentioned but not contextualized against other batch 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.
Many tools have overlapping functionality, especially the get/list pairs for customers, orders, and products which have identical descriptions except for the default action. The multiple order write tools (cancel, close, fulfill, etc.) also share the same underlying description, making it difficult for an agent to select the correct one.
Tool names mix patterns: some use simple <resource> (nuvemshop_categories), others use <resource>_<action> (nuvemshop_customers_get), and others use <resource>_write_<action> (nuvemshop_orders_write_cancel). The get/list split for customers, orders, and products is inconsistent with the categories tool which lacks such a split.
With 24 tools, the server has an excessive number for its scope. Many tools are redundant (e.g., separate get and list tools for each resource, and individual write tools for order status transitions). Consolidating these would reduce the count and improve usability.
The server covers the main e-commerce resources (categories, coupons, customers, orders, products) with read and write operations. However, there are gaps: no ability to create or delete customers, delete products, or delete coupons. The set is workable but not fully comprehensive.