Mutações em pedidos Nuvemshop. Ações:
update: PUT no pedido (requer order_id; data = JSON com campos editáveis, ex. owner_note).
close | open | cancel | pack | fulfill: transição de status (requer order_id; data opcional, ex. cancel aceita { reason }).
[Flattened action: close]
Bulk support: accepts order_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| order_id | Yes | ||
| order_ids | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions mutations and bulk support but does not explain the effects of closing an order (e.g., irreversibility, status changes, or side effects). The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the consequences of invoking this tool.
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 extraneous information (listing all actions) that expands it unnecessarily. It could be more concise by focusing solely on the close action. The structure is acceptable but not optimal.
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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, sibling tools for similar actions), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, authentication needs, or the specific behavior of closing vs. other status transitions. The mention of bulk support is helpful, but overall it lacks sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 explain parameter meaning. It notes that order_id is required and that data is optional (with an example for cancel), but does not clarify the data parameter's role for the close action. The 'account' and 'order_ids' parameters are mentioned but not described. Missing details leave parameter usage ambiguous.
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 lists multiple actions (update, close, open, cancel, pack, fulfill) but then states 'Flattened action: close', indicating this tool is specifically for closing orders. This mixed message creates confusion about the tool's actual scope. The name clarifies it is for closing, but the description doesn't fully commit to that single purpose.
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 lists sibling actions (close, cancel, pack, etc.) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the others. The 'Flattened action: close' hint provides some guidance, but there is no clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction, leaving ambiguity for an agent.
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.