Altera o status de uma fatura no Pagar.me V5 (requer invoice_id + status, ex.: 'paid', 'canceled').
Bulk support: accepts invoice_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| account | No | ||
| invoice_id | Yes | ||
| invoice_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate a non-destructive write operation; description adds that it changes status but lacks detail on side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Behavioral insights are minimal.
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?
Two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose and requirements. Bulk support is noted separately, making it easy to scan.
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?
No output schema, no description of return values or error conditions. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the full 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%. Description explains invoice_id and status via examples, and invoice_ids for bulk support, but 'account' is not described. Valid status values are not enumerated.
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 states the tool alters invoice status with examples ('paid', 'canceled'). It identifies the API version and required parameters, but does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'pagarme_invoices_cancel', which may cause 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pagarme_invoices_cancel. No prerequisites or context for appropriate use provided.
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.