Lista as contas bancárias da Procfy. Paginado.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "procfy_list_bank_accounts"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| items | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| filters | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so transparency burden is lower. However, the description adds only 'Paginado' (paginated) without explaining pagination behavior or rate limits, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
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?
Extremely short (one sentence) but under-specified; it omits critical information about parameters and usage. Conciseness should not come at the cost of completeness.
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, no output schema, and no param descriptions, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to provide enough information for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
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%, requiring the description to explain parameters. It only hints at pagination via 'Paginado' but fails to define 'page', 'items', 'account', or 'filters', leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them.
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 action (list), resource (bank accounts), and scope (Procfy, paginated). It effectively distinguishes from sibling list tools like procfy_list_accounts which lists accounts, not bank accounts.
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, no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where it is preferred. The description only provides a bare statement of function.
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.