Saldo de estoque de um produto pelo id (produto.obter.estoque.php).
Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| ids | 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 establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that bulk batches are supported via ids, but it does not disclose account handling, response format, or edge cases such as invalid IDs.
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 short and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and batch support in the second. The parenthetical backend filename adds minor noise but does not significantly hurt clarity.
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 stock lookup, the core semantics are present and annotations cover safety. However, the absence of an output schema and the unexplained 'account' parameter make the description not fully self-sufficient for invocation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'id' and 'ids', but the 'account' parameter is completely unexplained, so parameter coverage is only partial.
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 identifies the tool as returning a product's stock balance by ID, which distinguishes it from siblings like tiny_get_product or tiny_get_order. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit action verb, and it does not explicitly call out 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?
The description gives a clear context: retrieve stock for a product by id, and it mentions bulk execution via ids. It does not state when not to use this tool or explicitly compare it with sibling tools, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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.
The tiny_* tools are clearly distinct by resource and action, but the generic platform tools blur together: marketplace also handles report_bug, install/uninstall, token/connect links, and toolkit state, overlapping with authenticate, connect, report_bug, and toolkit_info. An agent could easily call marketplace for something a dedicated tool already covers, or confuse connect with authenticate.
The Tiny ERP tools follow a clean verb_noun pattern (tiny_list_orders, tiny_get_product, tiny_create_contact), but the platform tools use short unprefixed verbs (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info). Two internally consistent naming schemes coexist, so the overall set feels mixed rather than chaotic.
At 20 tools, the count is borderline heavy and mixes two distinct concerns: Tiny ERP operations and mcp.ai platform administration. The ERP tools are each reasonably scoped, but the generic tools could likely be consolidated, especially marketplace, which already absorbs several capabilities.
The ERP surface is heavily read-oriented: contacts, orders, invoices, products, payables, and receivables all support list/get, but only contacts have a create operation. There are no update/delete operations for any entity and no way to create orders, invoices, or products, which creates significant dead ends for real business workflows.