Updates NovaCRM store details by sending only the fields you want to change, including name, description, logo, banner, category, WhatsApp, theme color, and opening hours.
Atualiza informações da loja (envie apenas os campos a alterar).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| logoUrl | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| No | |||
| bannerUrl | No | ||
| storeName | No | ||
| themeColor | No | Cor de destaque (ex: #4f46e5) | |
| description | No | ||
| openingHours | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral trait — partial-update/PATCH semantics, where unspecified fields are left untouched — but says nothing about permissions, validation rules, failure modes, or what happens to nested structures like openingHours.
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 key partial-update hint in parentheses, front-loaded with the action. No waste, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.
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?
Eight parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations demand a richer description than one sentence. The definition leaves an agent without enough to correctly populate or validate the fields, and offers no insight into the mutation's effects.
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 only 13% (only themeColor is documented), so the description must compensate and does not. It gives no per-field meaning for the eight parameters and leaves the nested openingHours object entirely undefined in both schema and description; the "only send changed fields" note applies generically but adds no field-level 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?
"Atualiza informações da loja" states a verb (update) and resource (store), but "informações" is generic and the description never names which aspects of the store it covers or how it differs from sibling store tools like novacrm_set_store_status or novacrm_get_store. An agent can tell it mutates store data, but not the scope.
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 only guidance is the parenthetical about sending only changed fields, which is invocation semantics rather than when-to-use. There is no mention of prerequisites, of when to prefer novacrm_set_store_status, or of any conditions that should steer an agent here versus elsewhere.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.