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: update]
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 mentions actions and required parameters but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or reversibility of changes. With no annotations providing hints, the description should provide more behavioral context but falls short.
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 a single paragraph listing actions with brief explanations. It is relatively concise but could be better structured (e.g., separating single-order vs bulk use). The '[Flattened action: update]' line adds confusion.
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 multiple actions, bulk support, and 4 parameters with no output schema. The description lacks details on error handling, account parameter, and specific effects of each action. It is insufficient for an AI agent to fully understand and 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 add meaning. It explains that 'data' is a JSON string with editable fields like owner_note, and that order_id is required. For cancel, it notes that data can include 'reason'. This adds significant value, though 'account' remains unexplained.
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 name is 'write_update', causing ambiguity about the tool's actual scope. It is unclear whether this tool performs only update or all mutations, especially given sibling tools for each 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., nuvemshop_orders_write_cancel). The inclusion of multiple actions without differentiation is misleading, as separate sibling tools exist for each status transition.
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.