Analyzes customer cancellation reasons—price, change, competitor, quality, and delinquency—over a selected period to reveal churn drivers and support retention planning.
Motivos de cancelamento no período (preco, mudanca, concorrente, qualidade, inadimplencia).
| 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 are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the subject matter: no indication of aggregation shape, whether results are counts or percentages, or how the period is computed. The only behavioral hint is the parenthetical category list, which is thin for an analytics tool with two undocumented parameters.
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 short sentence with the resource front-loaded and the enumerations kept compact; nothing is padded. It is efficient, though the compression contributes to the missing parameter context.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out and the category list covers the result shape. However, the temporal scoping inputs remain undefined, which is a real gap for a time-windowed aggregation tool an agent must parameterize.
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%, so the description must explain the parameters and it does not. 'no período' weakly gestures at months, but as_of (nullable, default null) is never explained — no date format, no meaning of null, no interaction with months. The parenthetical list describes output categories, not input semantics.
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?
Names a specific resource (cancellation/churn reasons) scoped to a period and enumerates the five reason categories returned, which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like churn_by_month and churn_by_segment. The verb is implicit (no explicit 'list/aggregate'), which keeps it just short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus churn_by_month, churn_by_segment, or churn_risk, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.