superlogica_fornecedores_create
Despesas: Cadastrar favorecido (POST /fornecedores). [write, altera dados]
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| account | No |
Despesas: Cadastrar favorecido (POST /fornecedores). [write, altera dados]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| 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 '[write, altera dados]' tag explicitly warns that the operation mutates data, which is useful beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation. However, it does not disclose auth requirements, side effects, duplication behavior, or reversibility.
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 compact sentence with the domain, action, endpoint, and write warning front-loaded. It wastes no words, but the extreme brevity leaves the definition incomplete.
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 create tool with 0% parameter documentation, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is far too sparse to allow correct invocation. An agent would need substantial external knowledge to construct the request.
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% for body, query, and account, and the description does not explain any of them. An agent has no way to know what the body should contain, what query values are expected, or what account refers to.
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 a concrete action ('Cadastrar favorecido') and the exact endpoint ('POST /fornecedores'), making the create operation clear. It is distinguishable from fornecedores_list and fornecedores_update, though the term 'favorecido' rather than 'fornecedor' introduces slight ambiguity with contatofavorecido_create.
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?
There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over list/update or the many similar create tools. The 'Despesas' prefix only implies a domain; it does not state prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.