Update a pipeline stage's name, color, or sort order using pipeline ID, status ID, and client slug.
Atualiza o nome ou a cor de uma etapa de um funil.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| color | No | ||
| status_id | Yes | ID da etapa (status) | |
| client_slug | Yes | Identificador do cliente (slug) | |
| pipeline_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states that it updates name or color, missing the sort field and any mention of side effects, partial vs. full update semantics, or required parameters. The description is silent on what happens if only name or color is omitted.
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?
The description is a single short sentence, which is length-efficient, but it is under-specified and lacks any structure to front-load critical information. It provides no organization guiding the agent toward the most important details, such as required parameters or scope.
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 has 6 parameters with 3 required, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is minimal and does not cover return behavior, what happens when only some fields are provided, how to correctly identify the stage, or any error conditions. The description is inadequate for an agent to call it correctly with confidence.
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 33% (2 of 6 properties described). The description does not compensate: it repeats 'name' and 'color' but says nothing about the type, role, or requiredness of pipeline_id, client_slug, or sort, nor does it explain how these parameters interrelate. It adds negligible semantic value beyond the raw 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Atualiza' (updates) and the resource 'etapa de um funil' (pipeline stage), distinguishing it from create/delete stage siblings. However, it only mentions name and color, omitting the 'sort' field present in the schema, which slightly under-represents the tool's full 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_pipeline. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing pipeline_id and status_id) or conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.