superlogica_relatorios_id_046a
Read-onlyIdempotent
Relatórios: W046A - Previsão orçamentária (GET /relatorios/id/046A).
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
B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the endpoint and report type but not much behavioral context beyond that. The GET method is consistent with the annotations' readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so there is no contradiction. However, it does not mention response shape, pagination, authentication needs, or how the parameters affect behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single compact sentence, front-loaded with the report name and endpoint, with no filler or repetition. Every part of the sentence adds identifying information.
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?
The description gives basic orientation for a read-only report tool, but it omits parameter semantics and output expectations entirely. Without knowing what query and account mean, an agent can only safely invoke the tool with no parameters, and even then the expected result is only vaguely implied by the report title.
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 description provides no meaning for either. An agent has no basis to know what values to supply or how they filter the budget forecast report.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the exact report (W046A – Previsão orçamentária) and the specific GET endpoint, so an agent can tell it retrieves the budget-forecast report. The report code distinguishes it from sibling tools such as superlogica_relatorios_id_025a and superlogica_relatorios_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The report title and endpoint imply use when the budget forecast report is needed, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are mentioned.
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.