Calculates monthly cancellations and churn rate by dividing canceled customers by the active base at each month’s start, helping track retention trends over a chosen period.
Cancelamentos e taxa de churn mês a mês (taxa = cancelados / base ativa no início do mês).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_of | No | ||
| months | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add real value by disclosing the calculation basis (cancelled divided by active base at the start of the month), which an agent could not infer from the schema, but it says nothing about read-only nature, data freshness, or cost of a wide month range.
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?
A single well-formed sentence with the metric definition front-loaded and zero filler. However, brevity here comes at the cost of the missing guidance and parameter explanation, so the size is efficient but insufficient.
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?
The tool is simple: two optional parameters, no nesting, no annotations, and an output schema that already documents the return shape. Given that the only real unknown is parameter meaning, the definition is close to complete but leaves a gap around as_of and months.
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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Neither 'as_of' nor 'months' is mentioned, leaving their meaning, format, and default-driven behavior (months defaults to 12, as_of defaults to null) undocumented outside the bare schema.
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?
States a specific resource (cancelamentos / churn) at a specific granularity (mês a mês) and even defines the metric formula. It is distinguishable from siblings like churn_reasons or churn_by_segment by the monthly time axis, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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?
Usage is only implied by the name and the metric definition: an agent can infer this is the tool for a monthly churn trend. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to churn_by_segment or churn_reasons for the other cuts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.