Lista os contratos de atendimento, com filtro por cliente, tipo e situação.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "tiflux_list_contracts"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| client_ids | No | ||
| contract_type_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which clarify that this is a safe read operation. The description adds that filtering by client/type/status is possible, but it does not disclose pagination defaults, response shape, or any limits on returned data.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and object, then adds the most relevant filtering details. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary information, making it highly scannable.
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 simple read-only list operation with strong safety annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema, no parameter-level documentation, and no mention of pagination or response details, the description leaves some gaps that an agent would benefit from when invoking the tool accurately.
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%, but the description maps the key filter parameters to their conceptual meanings: cliente maps to client_ids, tipo maps to contract_type_ids, and situação maps to status. It does not explain limit/offset semantics or valid status/type ID values, though those parameter names are relatively self-explanatory.
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 begins with the specific verb 'Lista' and clearly identifies the resource being operated on: 'contratos de atendimento' (service contracts). It also names the main filtering dimensions (cliente, tipo, situação), which makes its purpose distinct from sibling list tools targeting other entities.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool: when the user needs to list service contracts, optionally filtered by client, type, or status. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions, pagination behavior, or when alternative tools should be preferred over 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.