Lista transações (receita/despesa/transferência/folha/imposto) da Procfy. Paginado (page/items, máx 50/página). Use filters (JSON) pra filtrar por data, conta, categoria etc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| items | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| filters | 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 already confirm safe read-only behavior (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, not destructive). The description adds pagination behavior (max 50 per page) and filter capability, which are not covered by annotations. No contradictions are present.
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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the primary action. Each sentence adds value: first defines the tool, second details pagination and filtering. Minor room for tightening, but overall efficient.
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?
Given no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers pagination and filtering but omits explanation of the 'account' parameter and return format. While the tool's purpose is clear, key behavioral details are missing, leaving moderate gaps.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It explains page/items for pagination and mentions `filters` JSON for filtering by date, account, category. However, the 'account' parameter in the schema is not addressed in the description, creating ambiguity about its role versus the filter JSON.
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 states 'Lista transações' (lists transactions) with specific types (receita/despesa/transferência/folha/imposto). It clearly differentiates from siblings like procfy_get_transaction (single transaction) and procfy_create_transaction (creation), providing a specific verb and resource scope.
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 pagination (page/items, max 50) and filtering via `filters`, implying usage for bulk listing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like procfy_get_transaction, nor does it provide exclusions or context for when not to use it.
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.
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes, especially the procfy_list_* tools which each target a different entity. The platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) are also distinguishable. However, the marketplace tool is multi-purpose with different actions, which could cause some confusion, but descriptions help.
Procfy-specific tools follow a consistent 'procfy_verb_noun' pattern, but platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) lack a prefix and mix verb and noun forms (e.g., marketplace is a noun). This inconsistency in naming conventions across the set reduces clarity.
With 16 tools, it's slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but still reasonable for a domain covering multiple entities (accounts, bank accounts, categories, etc.). The inclusion of platform tools (6) contributes to the count, but they are necessary for the server's operation.
The server provides extensive list operations and a create for transactions, but lacks update/delete for transactions and CRUD for other entities (categories, contacts, etc.). No tool for getting individual entities (except transaction and bank account balance) or creating/modifying them. Significant gaps for a full lifecycle.