superlogica_unidades_list
Unidades: Listar unidades de um condomínio (GET /unidades/index).
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| account | No |
Unidades: Listar unidades de um condomínio (GET /unidades/index).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint (GET) as a mild behavioral cue, but does not disclose response format, pagination, or authentication expectations.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the resource and operation while adding the endpoint in parentheses. No wasted words and the essential purpose is clear.
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?
The description names the operation but omits parameter meaning and result shape, and there is no output schema to compensate. Given the large sibling toolset and two undocumented parameters, an agent would struggle to call this tool confidently.
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% and the description does not explain the 'query' or 'account' parameters. An agent cannot infer whether 'query' is a search filter, a query string, or something else, nor what 'account' refers to in the context of listing unidades.
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 specific operation (Listar) on a specific resource (unidades de um condomínio) and includes the exact endpoint, GET /unidades/index. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling unidades create/update/delete operations.
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 other list tools, nor about optional filters or prerequisites. With many sibling superlogica_*_list tools, an agent cannot easily determine context for selecting this one.
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.