Arquivo de conciliação completo de um único dia, já convertido de XML para JSON, com todos os blocos (vendas, liquidações na conta, agenda prevista, eventos financeiros, pagamentos e posição de carteira). Use quando as tools de período não cobrirem o campo que você precisa.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| account | 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?
The description adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing that the output is a complete daily file, already converted from XML to JSON, and enumerating the contained blocks. The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description supplements rather than repeats that safety profile.
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 two sentences with no filler: the first sentence front-loads the core resource, scope, conversion status, and content blocks; the second sentence gives targeted usage guidance. Every phrase earns its place.
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 no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description carries a heavy burden. It describes the output contents well but fails to document the two input parameters, their expected formats, or the role of the optional account field. An agent could select the tool but would likely guess at parameter formatting.
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 compensate for both parameters, but it only vaguely implies that 'data' refers to the single day being queried. The 'account' parameter is not mentioned at all, and no date format or account identifier format is provided. This leaves parameter meaning largely inferred from the tool description rather than explicitly documented.
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 identifies what the tool provides: a complete single-day reconciliation file already converted from XML to JSON, including all major blocks. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns', but the object and scope are unmistakable, and it distinguishes itself from period-based tools.
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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: when the period-based tools do not cover the field needed. This implies a clear alternative path, though it does not name the specific sibling tools or list concrete 'when not to use' scenarios.
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.
The stone_vendas_* tools are clearly separated by data type, but the generic tools are not: connect, toolkit_info, and marketplace all describe connection/installed-tool state, and marketplace even mentions report_bug functionality that is also a standalone tool. Agents could easily pick the wrong meta-tool when checking status or running another MCP.
The Stone tools share a consistent stone_vendas_ prefix, but the rest of the server uses bare English verbs/nouns like authenticate, connect, marketplace, and toolkit_info. Inside the prefix, the names mix verbs like listar and limpar_cache with nouns like arquivo, recebiveis, and resumo, so no single naming pattern governs the set.
15 tools is not extreme, and the nine Stone-specific tools are reasonably scoped. However, six generic MCP.AI/admin tools are unrelated to Stone Vendas and dilute the server's purpose, making the count feel padded.
The Stone domain covers the main reconciliation workflow well: sales, Pix, settlements, receivables, cancellations/chargebacks, account listing, a catch-all daily file, and cache reset. There are minor gaps like a direct single-transaction lookup or an explicit bank-statement reconciliation tool, but core reporting has no dead ends.