Permanently delete a financial record. Irreversible.
Bulk support: accepts financeiro_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| financeiro_id | Yes | ||
| financeiro_ids | 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?
The description reinforces the destructiveHint annotation with 'Permanently delete' and 'Irreversible', and adds the behavioral detail of bulk support via financeiro_ids. It does not mention related data impact or permissions, but the annotations already signal destructiveness.
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?
Two sentences: first states purpose, second adds bulk support. No unnecessary words, front-loaded key 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?
Covers basic purpose and bulk capability but lacks parameter explanations, response details, and clarification on required vs optional fields. For a delete tool with 3 parameters, more context is needed.
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 explain parameters. It covers financeiro_ids for bulk but does not explain the 'account' parameter or the relationship between financeiro_id (required) and financeiro_ids (optional), creating confusion.
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 states 'Permanently delete a financial record' and 'Irreversible', specifying the action (delete) and the resource (financial record). This distinguishes it from siblings like webdiet_financeiro_list or webdiet_financeiro_write.
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 mentions bulk support via financeiro_ids, guiding users on batch execution. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other deletion tools (e.g., webdiet_manipulados_delete) or any prerequisites, such as required permissions.
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.
Tools are split by action (e.g., separate list, get, write tools for each resource), which makes boundaries somewhat clear, but the sheer number of similar tools (62 total) and repeated descriptions create confusion. An agent must carefully read each tool to pick the correct one, especially when multiple write tools exist for the same resource.
Naming conventions are inconsistent. Some tools use `webdiet_<resource>_write_<action>`, others use `webdiet_<resource>_<action>` (e.g., `webdiet_calculo_energetico_write_create` vs. `webdiet_create_antropometria`). There are also tools like `webdiet_food_search` that break the pattern. This makes it hard to predict tool names.
62 tools is excessive for a nutritionist platform. Many action variants (list, get, create, save, publish, delete, etc.) are split into separate tools rather than parameterized within a single tool. This bloats the tool list and could be consolidated to ~20-30 tools without losing functionality.
The server covers a very wide range of features: patient management, anamnesis, anthropometry, energy calculations, prescriptions (with multiple methods), financials, pre-consultation questionnaires, orientations, food search, file upload, and more. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit tool for meal reactions), but overall the surface is comprehensive for its domain.