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: fulfill]
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?
The description explains that fulfill is a status transition and requires order_id, and mentions bulk support. However, it does not detail the exact behavioral effect (e.g., marking items shipped, triggering notifications), potential side effects, or error conditions. Annotations provide no hints (all false), so the description carries the burden but is only partially informative.
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 not concise; it starts with a generic mutation overview that applies to multiple actions, then singles out fulfill. This structure buries the relevant detail. The bulk support mention is useful but could be integrated more succinctly.
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?
The tool has 4 parameters and potential bulk execution, no output schema. The description lacks return value explanation, success/failure indicators, and how batch results are provided. It does not cover all parameters adequately, leaving the agent with gaps in understanding the full interaction.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description must explain parameters. It mentions order_id as required and order_ids for bulk, but does not describe 'data' (optional) or 'account'. The example for cancel's data is given, but not for fulfill. This leaves ambiguity about what data can be provided for fulfill.
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 tool as handling 'fulfill' action for orders, distinguishable from siblings like 'cancel' or 'pack'. The name and the '[Flattened action: fulfill]' line make the purpose specific, though the initial generic mutation text adds some 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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other order mutation tools (e.g., cancel, close). The description lists other actions but does not clarify that this tool is only for fulfill. There is no advice on prerequisites or alternatives.
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.