Skip to main content
Glama
JoseAlmeida-Ploomes

Ploomes MCP Server

aplicar_campos_no_html_ia

Replaces placeholder field IDs with actual field keys in HTML, combining results from field identification and bulk creation tools, outputting HTML ready for proposal templates.

Instructions

    Montar o HTML final substituindo <field id="N"> por <field key="...">,
    combinando o resultado de identificar_campos_html_ia com o de
    criar_campos_em_massa_ia.

    Esta ferramenta NÃO chama nenhum endpoint — é só a reconciliação
    local dos dados, necessária porque bulk_fields_creation não devolve
    de volta o "Id" original de identificação (só devolve o array de
    campos criados na mesma ordem em que foram enviados). A
    documentação da feature (handoff-gerador-html-ia.pdf) não deixa
    explícito QUEM faz essa substituição (backend ou frontend do
    Ploomes) — implementei aqui para o fluxo funcionar de ponta a ponta
    de forma previsível.

    Parâmetros:
        html_com_ids: o campo "html_com_ids" retornado por
            identificar_campos_html_ia.
        campos_identificados: a lista "fields" retornada por
            identificar_campos_html_ia, NA ORDEM ORIGINAL (não filtre nem
            reordene) — cada item deve ter ao menos Id e, se já existir no
            sistema, Key.
        campos_criados: a lista "fields" retornada por
            criar_campos_em_massa_ia (campos que não tinham Key e foram
            criados agora), na mesma ordem em que foram enviados para lá.
            Omita se todos os campos de campos_identificados já tinham Key.

    Retorno:
        html_final: HTML com todos os <field id="N"> substituídos por
            <field key="..."> — pronto para ir em corpo_html/cabecalho_html
            de salvar_modelo_proposta.
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
html_com_idsYes
campos_criadosNo
campos_identificadosYes
Behavior5/5

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states that the tool does NOT call any endpoint, is purely local reconciliation, and explains the rationale behind its existence. No hidden side effects or ambiguities.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with clear sections, but it includes some redundant background context (e.g., documentation reference) that could be trimmed. It front-loads the purpose and uses bullet points for parameters, making it scannable.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers the input parameters, return value, and the overall flow. Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, it provides adequate context. However, it could mention potential failure cases or assumptions about the inputs.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining what each parameter is and where it comes from. It adds constraints (e.g., original order for campos_identificados, required fields per item, when to omit campos_criados). This goes far beyond the bare schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Montar o HTML final substituindo <field id="N"> por <field key="...">', combining results from two other tools. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are mostly CRUD operations on different entities.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains when to use: after identifying and creating fields, and specifies that campos_criados can be omitted if all fields already have Key. It justifies why the tool is needed (bulk_fields_creation limitation). However, it does not explicitly state conditions when NOT to use it or mention alternatives.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/JoseAlmeida-Ploomes/ploomes-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server