Conexa MCP

PATCH /recurringSale/end/:id (Recurring Sale)

end_recurring_sale

Destructive

End an active recurring sale or update its closure date to stop future charges.

Instructions

Encerra uma venda recorrente ativa ou atualiza a data de encerramento de uma venda recorrente no sistema Conexa.

Exemplo de body: { "date":"2024-10-31" }

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "end_recurring_sale"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Valor de :id na rota /recurringSale/end/:id
`body`	Yes	Corpo JSON da requisição (campos na descrição da tool)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that it can both end an active sale and update the closing date, but does not explain side effects or recovery options. No additional behavioral details beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise: two sentences and a JSON example. No unnecessary words. Information is front-loaded with the action and resource.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple but lacks return value information. With no output schema, the description does not explain what happens after ending (e.g., whether the sale becomes inactive). Sibling tools are complex, so more context would aid selection.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% but only gives minimal descriptions for 'id' and 'body'. The tool description provides an example body with the 'date' field, which clarifies the expected structure beyond the schema's generic 'JSON object' description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool ends an active recurring sale or updates its closing date. It mentions a specific resource ('recurring sale') and action ('end' or 'update closing date'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the 'update_recurring_sale' tool, which might update the same field.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_recurring_sale' or 'update_recurring_sale'. The description lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios for each option.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server