superlogica_arrecadacoes_resumo
Read-onlyIdempotent
Receitas: Resumo da arrecadação (GET /arrecadacoes/resumo).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| account | No |
Superlógica Condomínios
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the endpoint and the notion of a summary, but it does not disclose what the summary contains, how aggregation behaves, or what the response looks like. Some value is added beyond annotations, but behavioral detail is thin.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the domain category and the exact endpoint. It has no wasted words, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should at minimum explain what query and account control and what the resumo response contains. As written, an agent cannot reliably construct correct calls or interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has two parameters, query and account, with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention or explain either parameter. The agent receives no semantic guidance for these parameters beyond their generic names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource (arrecadações resumo) and the HTTP verb GET, making it plain that this tool retrieves a collection summary. However, it mostly restates the tool name and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like superlogica_caixa_saldo or relatorios tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There are no exclusions, preferred scenarios, or mentions of related tools that would help an agent choose between this and other revenue/reporting tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Many tools have overlapping boundaries: arquivos_create vs arquivos_put both add files, configuracoes_list vs configuracoes_list_get vs ini_config are three config-listing variants, and sindicos_list vs sindicos_list_get vs responsaveis_list vs usuario_list are four person-listing tools with similar semantics. The recurring _list vs _list_get suffix pattern across resources (inadimplencia, planocontas, configuracoes, sindicos) makes selection genuinely ambiguous.
Naming Consistency2/5
The superlogica_<resource>_<action> prefix is consistent, but action verbs are a chaotic mix of English (create, delete, update) and Portuguese (desfazer, estornar, liquidar, desinvalidar), and HTTP-method suffixes are semantically inverted (malotes_put creates while malotes_post edits; despesas_post edits). Platform tools (authenticate, marketplace, toolkit_info) break the pattern entirely, and there is a typo in ocorrencias_susgestoes.
Tool Count1/5
120 tools is an extreme count, far beyond the 50+ threshold for a mismatch. Even granting the breadth of a condominium-management domain, the surface looks like an uncurated endpoint-by-endpoint dump of the entire Superlógica API rather than a designed tool set.
Completeness4/5
The core domain is remarkably well covered: receitas, despesas, acordos, cobranças, unidades, condomínios, ocorrências, reservas, tickets, processos judiciais, and relatórios all have substantial lifecycle coverage including create/edit/delete/liquidar/estornar operations. Minor gaps exist (no delete for fornecedores or comunicados, no get-by-id for condominios/cobrancas, no ticket status update), but agents can work around most of them.