Condomínios / Contas bancárias: Adicionar nova movimentação bancária (POST /MovimentacoesDiretas). [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 annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces this with '[write, altera dados]', consistent with the annotations. It adds the useful behavioral clarification that this operation creates a new bank transaction rather than merely updating. However, it does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, or validation behavior beyond what annotations imply.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the domain and core action, and the endpoint name aids discoverability. The bracketed '[write, altera dados]' is redundant with readOnlyHint=false, but the overall length is appropriate and does not obscure the meaning.
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 the tool has three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is materially incomplete. It establishes the endpoint and intent but offers no information about how to construct the request, what 'account' refers to, or what a successful response looks like.
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 input schema has three string parameters (body, query, account) with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no explanation of what these parameters mean, how they map to the endpoint, or which are expected/required. The agent is left completely in the dark about the payload structure and query/account roles.
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 states a specific action ('Adicionar nova movimentação bancária') and resource ('Contas bancárias'), and it includes the endpoint 'POST /MovimentacoesDiretas'. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like 'superlogica_movimentacoesdiretas_post' or 'superlogica_movimentacoesdiretas_estornar', so it lacks sibling differentiation.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus the very similar 'superlogica_movimentacoesdiretas_post' or when to prefer the 'estornar' variant. The description gives only a domain context ('Condomínios / Contas bancárias') but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.
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.