Lista os StoneCodes (estabelecimentos) Stone conectados neste install, com id e apelido.
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": "stone_vendas_contas"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scope boundary 'conectados neste install' and specifies output fields, but does not disclose authentication needs, filtering behavior, or possible error conditions.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose and expected output.
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?
For a simple read-only list tool, the description covers the return contents (id and apelido), but the undocumented `account` parameter and the lack of usage context leave a meaningful gap. Since there is no output schema, the description should have explained the parameter more thoroughly.
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?
The only parameter, `account`, is a bare string with no schema description (0% coverage), and the tool description never mentions it. The description does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics, so an agent cannot tell whether `account` filters, selects, or is needed in some cases.
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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') and a specific resource ('StoneCodes/estabelecimentos Stone conectados neste install') and explicitly mentions the output fields (id and apelido). This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like stone_vendas_listar or stone_vendas_recebiveis.
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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description simply states what the tool lists, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.
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.