Relatório de satisfação (feedback) dos chamados por período, com recorte por responsável, departamento ou grupo de atendentes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| end_date | No | ||
| start_date | No | ||
| tickets_list | No | ||
| department_ids | No | ||
| responsible_ids | No | ||
| technical_group_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, and the description's 'Relatório' is consistent with a safe read operation. The description adds little beyond that, such as pagination behavior, date requirements, or the meaning of tickets_list, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.
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, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core concept and each phrase adds meaningful scoping or filter information.
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?
With 8 optional parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the one-line overview is sufficient for selecting the tool but not for confidently invoking it. Important gaps remain around pagination parameters, the tickets_list boolean, and what the returned report structure 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the 8 parameters. It partially does by mapping 'período' to start_date/end_date and 'responsável', 'departamento', and 'grupo de atendentes' to the ID array parameters, but it leaves limit, offset, and tickets_list unexplained.
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 defines this as a ticket satisfaction/feedback report scoped by date range and filters by responsible person, department, or attendant group. It distinguishes the tool from sibling ticket list/get tools, though it lacks an explicit verb and is largely a restatement of the tool name.
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 report context is clear: use this for satisfaction feedback reporting over a period, optionally filtered by responsible, department, or technical group. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the described scope is specific enough to imply the intended usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.