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: open]
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 are all false, but the description indicates the tool performs status transitions and supports bulk execution via order_ids. This adds some behavioral context, though it does not detail specific side effects or prerequisites.
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 redundantly lists all actions despite the tool being specific to 'open'. This dilutes relevant information and wastes tokens.
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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits return values, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., order state), and does not fully define the 'open' action 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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains that order_id is required and data is optional JSON for some actions, but does not define the format or examples for 'open'. Partial coverage, leaving ambiguity.
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 the tool is named specifically for 'open'. This creates confusion about the tool's actual purpose, as it appears to be generic while the name suggests a single action.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., nuvemshop_orders_write_cancel, _close). The description covers all actions but does not differentiate, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.
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.