Cancelamentos, chargebacks e reapresentações de chargeback da conta Stone no período, com o NSU da venda de origem, valor, datas e motivo. A Stone fecha um arquivo por dia e o do dia só fica pronto depois das 5h do dia seguinte, então o padrão vai até ontem. Máximo de 92 dias por chamada.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| data_fim | No | ||
| data_inicio | 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: daily file generation, data freshness timing, default end date, and the 92-day request cap. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Three compact sentences with no filler: the first states the resource and output fields, the second explains data availability and defaults, and the third gives the hard constraint. All sentences earn their place and key constraints are front-loaded.
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 there is no output schema, the description helpfully names the returned data elements and operational constraints. It is missing explicit date format expectations and more precise account-parameter behavior, but for a read-only, idempotent lookup tool the provided context is largely sufficient.
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 carries the burden. It communicates the period concept, the 92-day limit, and the default through yesterday, and 'conta Stone' maps to the account parameter. However, it does not explicitly define date formats, whether params are optional, or exactly how account defaults behave, so compensation is only partial.
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 the tool's domain: cancellations, chargebacks, and chargeback re-presentations for the Stone account, and lists the returned fields (NSU, value, dates, reason). This unambiguously differentiates it from siblings like stone_vendas_liquidacoes and stone_vendas_recebiveis. Although there is no explicit verb, the intent to return this data is unmistakable.
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 provides concrete operational guidance: Stone produces one file per day, the current day is only ready after 5am the next day, the default range goes through yesterday, and calls are limited to 92 days. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when and how to call 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.
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.