Pedidos (orders) no Pagar.me V5. Ações:
list: lista paginada (page, size, code, status, customer_id, created_since, created_until).
get: detalhe por order_id.
get_many: busca vários por order_ids (lote, retorna { results, errors }).
[Flattened action: list]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| size | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| order_id | No | ||
| order_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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'lista paginada' but does not explain pagination behavior (defaults, limits) nor clarify that the flattened action is 'list'. The mismatch between described parameters and schema undermines transparency.
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 includes irrelevant details about 'get' and 'get_many' actions, which could be omitted. The note '[Flattened action: list]' is helpful but the description is not front-loaded and contains excessive information for a list-only tool.
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 no output schema and mismatched parameters, the description fails to convey how to use the tool effectively. It does not specify return format, pagination defaults, behavior when optional fields are omitted, or how the 'list' action differs from other order-related tools.
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 parameters. However, it does not define any of the input schema properties (data, page, size, account, order_id, order_ids). The listed parameters for list (code, status, etc.) are absent from the schema, providing no useful mapping.
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 conflates three actions (list, get, get_many) but the tool is for 'list' only. The listed parameters for list (code, status, etc.) do not match the input schema properties (data, account, order_id, order_ids), creating confusion about what the tool actually does.
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 mentions sibling actions (get, get_many) but does not provide any criteria for when to use this 'list' tool versus alternatives like pagarme_orders_get or pagarme_orders_get_many. No guidance on context or prerequisites.
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.