MCP Vista CRM Loft

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are grouped by entity and action, making most distinct. However, 'imovel_detalhes' and 'imovel_informacoes' have overlapping purposes (complete vs summarized info), and 'cliente_cadastrar_historico' vs 'cliente_historico' could confuse agents on read vs write.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow entity_action snake_case, but there's inconsistency between singular and plural (e.g., 'imovel_alterar' vs 'imoveis_pesquisar') and 'imoveis_listas' breaks the pattern.
Tool Count3/5
42 tools is high for a typical server; while real estate CRM may justify many operations, it feels bloated. The scope could be consolidated.
Completeness2/5
CRUD is incomplete: missing delete operations for clients, properties, appointments, and leads. Pipeline lacks create/delete. Webhook only lists. This forces dead ends and workarounds for agents.
Average 2.4/5 across 42 of 42 tools scored. Lowest: 1.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, idempotent, requires authentication). The single phrase provides zero transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While extremely short, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness; the description omits crucial information and feels incomplete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given two parameters (one required nested object) and no output schema, the description fails to inform about return format, filtering, or usage context, leaving the agent with no actionable detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the meanings of 'imovel' or 'filtros'; the nested object 'filtros' is completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Visitas em um imóvel' is a noun phrase that merely restates the tool name 'agendamentos_por_imovel' without specifying a verb or clarifying whether it lists, creates, or filters appointments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like agendamentos_por_cliente or agendamentos_por_corretor; the description offers no context cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only states 'summarized/highlighted information' without disclosing read-only behavior, data returned, or any side effects. It is insufficient for an agent to understand expected outcomes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but it sacrifices useful detail. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise, as it omits critical information needed for correct usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to complete the picture. It does not clarify what 'resumidas' means or how this tool differs from 'imovel_detalhes', making it inadequate for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The parameter 'codigo' is not described in the schema or the tool description, leaving its meaning and format entirely undocumented. The description adds no value beyond the name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Informações resumidas/destacadas' is vague and lacks a specific verb-resource pair. It does not clearly indicate that the tool retrieves a summary of property information, nor does it differentiate from sibling tool 'imovel_detalhes' which likely provides full details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'imovel_detalhes' or other property-related tools. The description offers no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is idempotent, what effects it has on existing data, or any prerequisites. The minimal text offers no transparency beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (3 words) but lacks structure and essential detail. Conciseness is only positive when the description is still informative; here it is under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a complex nested parameter, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, side effects, or the nature of the history being registered, making it insufficient for correct tool selection and use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage and the description adds no meaning to parameters. 'codigo' and 'dados' are unexplained; the nested object 'dados' has no constraints or examples, leaving the agent unsure of expected content.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Registra contato/evento' vaguely indicates registering a contact or event but does not specify the target entity (client) or differentiate from siblings like 'cliente_historico' (likely view) or 'cliente_cadastrar' (create client). The verb 'registra' is generic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist for similar actions (e.g., 'cliente_alterar', 'agendamento_cadastrar'), but the description provides no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like what the tool returns, whether it is a read operation, or any limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While very short, the description is under-specified rather than concise; it fails to provide essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter descriptions, the description is completely inadequate for understanding the tool's behavior and return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to the parameters 'corretor' or 'filtros', leaving their format and purpose unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Agenda de um corretor' is a minimal restatement of the tool name, lacking a specific verb and not distinguishing it from siblings like agendamentos_por_cliente or agendamentos_por_imovel.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as agendamentos_pesquisar or agendamentos_por_cliente.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The single phrase offers no transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (3 words), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks essential context, making it insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description should at least state what is returned (e.g., list of favorite properties). It fails to provide complete context for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'codigo' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain its meaning or usage. The description adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Imóveis favoritados' suggests this tool deals with favorited properties, but it lacks a verb indicating the action (e.g., list, get, add). The name 'cliente_favoritos' implies client favorites, so the purpose is partially clear but ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'imoveis_listas' or 'imoveis_pesquisar'. The description does not specify context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions 'interactions' but does not disclose read-only nature, pagination, ordering, or side effects. With no annotations, the description fails to convey essential behavioral traits beyond the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one short phrase), which is positive, but it sacrifices informativeness. It could be expanded slightly to improve clarity without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to specify what the history contains, how results are returned, or any constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the required parameter 'codigo'. It is unclear whether this is a client code, interaction ID, or other identifier.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Histórico de interações' indicates the tool returns interaction history, which aligns with the tool name. It vaguely distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cliente_cadastrar_historico' (create history) and 'cliente_detalhes' (details), but lacks specificity about the entity and scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. The sibling list includes many related tools (e.g., 'cliente_detalhes', 'cliente_cadastrar_historico'), but the description gives no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention pagination, read-only nature, authentication, or any side effects, leaving the agent uninformed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (3 words), but at the cost of utility. The brevity sacrifices necessary detail, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, pagination, and no output schema, the description is critically incomplete. It fails to inform about filtering, result format, or any behavioral aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond the schema. With 50% schema coverage, the description should clarify the remaining parameters, but it does not address 'campos', 'filtros', or 'paginacao' in context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Clientes do corretor' is a direct translation of the tool name, adding no new information. It fails to specify the scope or differentiate from sibling tools like clientes_pesquisar which may also filter by broker.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include similar client retrieval functions, but the description offers no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The description is minimal and adds no transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, which is concise, but it is a fragment lacking structure. It could be improved with a full sentence and better organization, though it does not waste words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple schema (one enum parameter) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return format or fully cover all allowed input values, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists some enum values ('cidades, bairros, tipos') but omits 'finalidades' and 'categorias'. It does not explain what each option returns or how to use the parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only partially does.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Listas de cidades, bairros ou tipos' suggests the tool returns lists, but it uses a noun phrase rather than a clear action verb. It mentions three of the five enum options but omits 'finalidades' and 'categorias', making the purpose partially clear but incomplete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. Among many sibling tools related to properties and clients, there is no indication of context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and only a minimal description, there is no disclosure of behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or what happens on invalid input. The description does not add any safety or side-effect context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short phrase, making it concise but underspecified. It avoids tautology by adding 'documentos anexos' beyond the tool name, but it lacks necessary structural elements like an action verb or clear context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., list of document references, URLs), how many, or any ordering. An agent would have to guess the behavior, increasing misuse risk.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole required parameter 'codigo' has 0% schema coverage and is not explained in the description. The description does not clarify what 'codigo' represents (e.g., property ID), nor does it provide format or constraints. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Documentos anexos do imóvel' (attached documents of the property) indicates the tool relates to property documents, but it is a noun phrase rather than a verb-resource statement. It does not explicitly state whether the tool retrieves, lists, or manipulates these documents. It distinguishes from siblings like imovel_fotos by topic, but the action is implied.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. Sibling tools exist for registering documents (imovel_cadastrar_documentos) and other property operations, but the description offers no comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'add documents' without any details on whether documents are appended or replaced, what types are supported, size limits, or side effects. This is insufficient for an AI agent to understand implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one short sentence) but this comes at the cost of omitting critical information. It is not structured with front-loaded key details; rather, it is an underspecified statement that fails to earn its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a parameter requiring an array of objects (without defined structure in the schema) and no output schema, the description is profoundly incomplete. It does not explain what constitutes a valid document object, error conditions, or how the property is identified. The complexity demands much more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters ('codigo' and 'documentos') with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what 'codigo' represents (e.g., property code) or the expected structure of objects in the 'documentos' array. No additional meaning is provided beyond the schema field names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly indicates the tool's purpose: adding documents to a property ('Adiciona documentos ao imóvel'). It uses a verb+resource pattern and is easily understood. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'imovel_anexos' which might have similar functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description lacks any usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior, but it fails entirely. It does not mention whether photos are appended or replaced, any size/format constraints, required permissions, or side effects like overwriting existing photos.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence) but does not earn its place—it merely restates the tool's name in verb form. It lacks structure or important details, making it too minimal for effective use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It omits return values, behavior, and integration context with sibling tools like 'imovel_alterar' or 'imovel_fotos'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters. 'codigo' and 'fotos' remain cryptic; the 'fotos' array of objects has no defined structure. The description adds zero value beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Adiciona' (adds) and the resource 'fotos ao imóvel' (photos to the property), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'imovel_fotos' which likely retrieves photos, but the action is distinct enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives. No context is provided about prerequisites (e.g., property must exist) or situations where this tool is appropriate. The description offers no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only says 'Lists appointments' without mentioning any behavioral aspects like authentication, pagination, or performance impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 3 words, which is concise but severely lacking in informative content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and many siblings, the description is incomplete—it does not explain the parameter usage or differentiate from related tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'filtros' has 0% schema description coverage and the main description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent without any understanding of how to use filters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Lists appointments in the CRM' which gives a verb and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like agendamentos_por_cliente or agendamentos_por_corretor.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; siblings have specific filters that could be used instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, pagination behavior, side effects). Fails to inform the AI agent about safety or operational characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While concise (4 words), it is under-specified and lacks structure. Important information is missing, making it not truly concise but instead incomplete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, pagination, or required input details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%; the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the 'agencia' parameter or the usage of 'campos' and 'filtros'. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Clientes da agência' clearly indicates the tool returns clients filtered by agency, distinguishing it from siblings like clientes_por_corretor. However, it lacks a verb (list/get/search) and is minimal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clientes_pesquisar or clientes_por_corretor. No context on filtering or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'register a new property' with no information on side effects, idempotency, authentication requirements, or what happens on duplicate entries.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Although only one sentence long, it is too concise to be useful. Essential information about parameters and behavior is omitted, sacrificing clarity for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description fails to compensate for the lack of output schema and the complex nested object parameter. Crucial details about the structure of 'dados' and expected return values are missing, making the tool nearly unusable for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'dados' is an object with no defined properties and schema description coverage at 0%. The description provides zero explanation of what fields or structure are expected, leaving the agent blind.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Cadastra um novo imóvel' clearly states the verb (register) and resource (property), distinguishing it from siblings like 'imovel_alterar' (modify) and 'imovel_detalhes' (details).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as 'imovel_alterar' or 'imovel_cadastrar_documentos'. The agent receives no contextual cues for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the brief description fails to disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, authentication needs, or side effects. It does not indicate whether duplicate leads are handled or what happens after sending.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks structured breakdown and does not earn its place by providing essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a nested parameter object and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return format, error conditions, or how to structure the input correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% documentation coverage on properties, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. The nested object 'dados' with fields Nome, Email, Telefone is not explained, leaving the agent without guidance on required vs. optional fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Envia lead de fonte externa' (Sends lead from external source) clearly specifies the verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'leads_pesquisar' (search leads). However, it lacks detail on what 'lead' and 'external source' mean precisely.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as 'cliente_cadastrar' or 'leads_pesquisar'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Atualiza' (updates), implying mutation but offering no detail on side effects, authorization requirements, or what happens to existing data. This is insufficient for an informed agent decision.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 3 words, which is concise. However, it is too brief to be effective; it front-loads minimal information but fails to earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name. A score of 3 reflects adequate brevity but insufficient substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters with a nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what fields are updateable, the format of 'codigo', how the response looks, or any constraints. The agent lacks critical information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters ('codigo' and 'dados') with 0% coverage from the description. The description does not explain what each parameter means or how to use them. 'dados' is an open object with additionalProperties, yet the description provides no hint about valid fields or structure. This forces the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Atualiza um agendamento' clearly states the action (update) and resource (appointment). It is specific enough to convey the basic purpose, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'agendamento_cadastrar' (create) or 'agendamento_detalhes' (details), which limits agent selection confidence.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, such as requiring an existing appointment code. The agent receives no context to decide when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the creation action but gives no behavioral traits such as idempotency, permissions needed, side effects, or what happens if data is invalid. The description is insufficient for understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single short sentence. While brevity is valued, it lacks necessary detail. The structure is appropriate, but the content is under-specified, earning a middle score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (nested object parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, what fields are required in 'dados', or any constraints. The description fails to provide sufficient context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'dados' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds no meaning about what fields or structure 'dados' should contain. The agent has no guidance on how to populate this parameter, making the tool very hard to use correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Cria novo agendamento' clearly states the action (create a new appointment) and the resource (appointment). It is a specific verb+resource combination, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like agendamento_alterar or agendamentos_pesquisar. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. This leaves the agent with no guidance for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or idempotency. The burden is entirely on the description, which fails to add value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise, but conciseness comes at the cost of missing critical information. Not front-loaded with key details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and complex parameter structure, the description is woefully incomplete. Does not address return values, constraints, or usage patterns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description provides no guidance on the 'dados' parameter. The parameter is a free-form object with no documented keys, leaving the agent clueless about required fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Cria um novo cliente.' clearly states the action (creating) and resource (client). It distinguishes from siblings like cliente_alterar, but does not elaborate on scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cliente_cadastrar_historico or when not to use it. Missing context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or requires an existing client record. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (three words), but it lacks any explanatory structure. It is under-specified, not optimally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description still fails to provide essential context, such as that it updates the client's associated agent. It relies heavily on prior domain knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names 'codigo' and 'corretor'. It fails to explain their roles or expected values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Define corretor do cliente' clearly states the action (assign/set an agent) and the resource (client). It is specific enough to distinguish from similar sibling tools like 'imovel_definir_corretor', though it does not explicitly mention this distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as 'cliente_alterar' or other client manipulation tools. The description offers no context about prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read operation but does not confirm read-only nature, required permissions, pagination, or potential side effects. This is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence. While not verbose, it lacks necessary depth. Front-loading is not an issue as the entire description is front-loaded, but the content is insufficient for an effective tool definition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It omits return format, error conditions, and relationship to other client tools, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is low (50%: 'campos' described, 'codigo' not). The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. It does not explain the purpose of 'codigo' or how 'campos' filters results, offering no added value for parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Info completa do cliente' indicates the tool retrieves complete client information. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cliente_favoritos' or 'clientes_pesquisar' but uses vague wording ('completa') without specifying what data is included.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cliente_alterar' or 'clientes_por_corretor', nor does it mention any prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'updates data' without revealing side effects, required permissions, error scenarios, or whether the update is idempotent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It could be expanded to include key points without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (nested object parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the return format, error handling, or structure of 'dados', leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% parameter description coverage and the description adds no meaning. Parameters 'codigo' and 'dados' are unexplained; 'codigo' (likely a property code) and 'dados' (an unstructured object) need clarification for an agent to use correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates property data ('Atualiza dados de um imóvel.'), which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like imovel_cadastrar (create) or imovel_detalhes (read), so it misses some clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not mention prerequisites, cases where another tool would be more appropriate, or conditions like partial vs full updates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description lacks behavioral details. It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, or what happens to a previously assigned corretor.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one phrase), but it sacrifices critical detail. It is well-structured for brevity but incomplete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter explanations, the description is insufficient for an AI agent to use correctly. It does not cover purpose, inputs, outputs, or side effects beyond a basic hint.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to parameters 'codigo' or 'corretor'. An agent cannot infer that 'codigo' likely refers to property code and 'corretor' to agent identifier.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Define corretor responsável' clearly indicates the action is to set the responsible real estate agent. The tool name 'imovel_definir_corretor' specifies it's for a property, distinguishing it from similar sibling like 'cliente_definir_corretor' for clients.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or context for setting the responsible agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that it lists photos. It does not mention if this operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, or what the response format is.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one phrase), which is concise, but it lacks a proper sentence structure with an imperative verb. It is under-specified yet not verbose, so scores mid-range.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It omits details about what the list of photos contains (URLs, metadata, count) and any pagination or filtering behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'codigo' has no schema description, and the tool description does not explain what it represents (e.g., property ID, listing code). With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List of property photos' clearly identifies the resource (photos) and association (property). However, it is a noun phrase without a verb, and it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'imovel_anexos' (which might also include photos).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as 'imovel_cadastrar_fotos' or 'imovel_anexos'. The description fails to clarify if this is a read-only listing or has prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description implies a read operation ('history') but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, what permissions are required, or whether any side effects occur. This lack of transparency is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single phrase, which is concise but insufficiently detailed. It sacrifices completeness for brevity. A slightly longer description that adds parameter context or behavioral notes would be more valuable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description should at least explain the nature of the events returned or provide an example. The current description leaves the agent guessing about the response format and content, making it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the single parameter 'codigo'. It fails to indicate that this is the property identifier (e.g., property code), leaving the agent to infer from context. The description adds no value beyond the schema structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Histórico de eventos do imóvel' clearly indicates the tool returns the history of events for a property, which distinguishes it from other property tools like imovel_detalhes (details) or imovel_fotos (photos). However, it does not specify what types of events are included, making it somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool over alternatives, such as imovel_detalhes or imoveis_pesquisar, nor does it mention prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions only that it lists items but omits details on pagination, filtering capabilities, result structure, or side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to predict behavior accurately.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, making it concise. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, leaving the agent underinformed. It is not poorly structured but is incomplete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter documentation, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to cover return format, filtering possibilities, or usage constraints, leaving the agent with barely enough information to attempt use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'filtros' has no description and 0% schema coverage. The description adds no meaning to the parameters; it does not explain valid filter keys, value formats, or constraints. The agent gains no understanding of how to construct a valid filter object.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Lista' (lists) and identifies the resource as 'negociações e perfis de interesse no funil de vendas'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'pipeline_atualizar_etapa' and 'pipeline_campos', though the term 'perfis de interesse' could be more precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing this list operation over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the result type (visits) but does not disclose traits such as whether it returns all visits, pagination, ordering, or side effects. It does not address authentication, rate limits, or data modification.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (4 words) but at the cost of essential information. It does not earn its place because it omits critical details like what 'visitas' means, how to use parameters, and what the output looks like. A good description would be longer but more informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, one with nested object, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the expected output structure, possible filter options, or any default behavior. Without additional context, an AI agent cannot reliably use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions. The description adds minimal value: it implies that 'cliente' identifies the client but does not specify its format (e.g., ID, name). The 'filtros' parameter is completely unexplained; its structure, allowed keys, and behavior are ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Visitas de um cliente' clearly indicates the tool retrieves visits (agendamentos) for a specific client. It distinguishes from siblings like 'agendamentos_por_corretor' and 'agendamentos_por_imovel' by specifying the parameter is a client. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., list/get) and does not differentiate from similar tools that might also filter by client.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'agendamentos_pesquisar' or 'agendamentos_por_corretor'. There is no mention of prerequisites, recommended scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states the action (register), implying mutation, but provides no details on side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (3 words), but this brevity sacrifices necessary detail. While not verbose, it fails to include essential information, resulting in under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (mutation with nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover return values, error handling, or prerequisites, making it insufficient for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the two parameters: codigo (likely a property identifier) and dados (free-form object). The agent lacks guidance on what values to provide for codigo or the structure of dados, which is critical for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Registra evento no histórico' clearly states the action (register an event) and the resource (history), but it does not specify which entity's history (e.g., property). From the tool name and siblings, it is likely for imóvel, but the description alone lacks this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 imovel_historico (which retrieves history) or imovel_cadastrar (which registers a property). There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it provides 'info' without clarifying if it is read-only, what data is returned, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one phrase), which is concise but lacks substance. It is not verbose, but the brevity comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low schema description coverage (0%) and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the returned information. As is, it is incomplete for an agent to understand what 'info' entails.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter 'codigo' with no description coverage. The tool description does not explain its meaning, leaving the agent to infer it is an appointment code. No added value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Info de um agendamento específico' clearly indicates the tool retrieves information for a specific appointment, matching the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like agendamentos_pesquisar or agendamentos_por_cliente.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Não há anotações fornecidas. A descrição apenas menciona 'atualiza', indicando mutação, mas não detalha efeitos colaterais (ex.: substituição total vs. mescla), requisitos de autenticação ou reversibilidade.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A frase é curta e direta, mas o conteúdo é mínimo. Embora concisa, não utiliza o espaço para agregar valor além do básico.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Dado que a ferramenta tem um parâmetro objeto complexo ('dados') sem schema descritivo, a descrição é insuficiente. Faltam informações sobre valores permitidos, efeito da atualização e formato de retorno.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
A cobertura de descrição do schema é 0%. A descrição não explica que 'codigo' identifica o cliente nem que 'dados' é um objeto flexível, deixando o agente sem contexto adicional sobre os parâmetros.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
O verbo 'atualiza' e o recurso 'dados do cliente' indicam claramente a operação. Diferencia-se de 'cliente_cadastrar' (criação) e 'cliente_detalhes' (consulta) pelo nome, embora não explicite essa distinção.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
A descrição não oferece orientação sobre quando usar esta ferramenta em vez das alternativas (ex.: 'cliente_cadastrar' para criação, 'cliente_detalhes' para consulta). Não há menção a pré-requisitos ou exclusões.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavior like read-only nature, authorization needs, pagination behavior, or default fields returned. Minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one phrase). While concise, it may be overly minimal for clarity. It fits the tool but could benefit from more structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, and the description fails to explain return values, default behavior, or filter syntax. For a search tool with nested parameters, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67%, and the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema. It does not explain the meaning of campos, filtros, or paginacao beyond their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Busca clientes com filtros' clearly states the action (search) and resource (clients), and mentions filtering. It differentiates from other specific client operations but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling search tools like clientes_por_agencia.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clientes_por_agencia or clientes_por_corretor. The description does not provide context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the linking relationship but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what authentication is needed, pagination behavior, or error scenarios. The presence of pagination and filter parameters is not acknowledged.
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 a single short sentence, front-loaded with the core idea. No wasted words. However, it is overly terse, sacrificing completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters (required corretor, optional campos, filtros, paginacao), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention how to use pagination, what filters are possible, or what the response format looks like. Sibling tools often have richer descriptions, making this one insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 50% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It implies that 'corretor' identifies the agent, which is helpful since the schema lacks description for that required parameter. However, it does not clarify 'campos', 'filtros', or 'paginacao' beyond their schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the resource (properties) and the linking criterion (by agent), but the verb is implicit. It does not specify whether the tool lists, searches, or returns properties. While it is not a tautology, it lacks action clarity and does not differentiate from siblings like imoveis_pesquisar or imoveis_por_agencia.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Many sibling tools exist (e.g., imoveis_pesquisar, imoveis_por_agencia), but the description provides no context on choosing this one. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read/write nature, rate limits, or side effects. Simply states functionality without deeper insight.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action and resource. However, lacks detail; could be more informative within same length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and limited description. Does not explain return format, pagination behavior, or how filters work. Siblings like imoveis_campos suggest field selection is possible but not mentioned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (mentions filters and pagination but not campos or ordenacao). The schema already provides descriptions for each parameter, so the description adds little value beyond redundancy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Busca' (Search) and resource 'imóveis' (properties), with filters and pagination. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, the name similar to others and the general nature is evident.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like imoveis_por_agencia or imoveis_por_corretor. Lacks context on prerequisites or preferences.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action but does not clarify if the tool is idempotent, whether it overwrites an existing owner, or what authentication is required. The mutation nature of the tool is implied but not detailed.
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 a single short sentence with no fluff. While it could be expanded with more detail, it is concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 required parameters, one nested object, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the input format, expected return values, or any state dependencies. The agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without additional knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what 'codigo' represents (property code or owner code?) nor the expected structure of the 'proprietario' object. The agent is left with no semantic context beyond the parameter names.
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 'Vincula proprietário ao imóvel' which translates to 'Links owner to property'. The verb 'Vincula' is specific and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'imovel_cadastrar' (create property) and 'imovel_alterar' (alter property).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., property and owner must exist), nor does it specify when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, or side effects. A search tool is typically read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.
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 concise at one sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource. It is efficient but could include additional context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, nested pagination parameter, and many sibling tools. The description is too brief to provide complete context; missing details on return format, pagination specifics, and filtering capabilities.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67%, with two parameters (campos, filtros) described in schema but paginacao lacking a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning or usage hints for any parameter, failing to compensate for the missing schema description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Busca leads capturados' clearly states the verb (search) and resource (captured leads). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'capturados', but does not elaborate on differences from other search tools like clientes_pesquisar.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., is it read-only? does it require authentication?). The only hint is that it 'discovers' fields, implying a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated.
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 a single, short sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient but could benefit from a bit more context without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description bears full burden. It fails to explain the return format, how to use the discovered fields, or whether the result is a list of names, objects, etc. The description is too minimal to be considered complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters, so the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 4 is appropriate as schema coverage is 100% and no further parameter explanation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states it discovers available fields in the API, which conveys the basic purpose. However, it is vague about which API or context (e.g., for properties), and it doesn't differentiate from similar metadata tools like 'clientes_campos' or 'pipeline_campos', which could have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites or appropriate usage context, such as before performing property searches or edits. The agent receives no help in deciding when this tool is applicable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The phrase 'complete information' implies a read operation but lacks specificity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but underspecified. It could be more informative without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about the return value or the scope of 'complete information'. The presence of sibling tools with similar names (e.g., 'imovel_informacoes') increases the need for disambiguation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (only 'campos' has a description). The tool description helps infer that 'codigo' is the property identifier, adding some context beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the expected format or constraints of 'codigo'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Complete information about a property' clearly indicates the tool retrieves details for a single property. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'imovel_informacoes' or 'imovel_historico' which may serve a similar purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites or context where other property-related tools would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or prerequisites. The tool likely performs a read operation, but this is not explicit.
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 very concise (one short sentence). It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it sacrifices necessary detail, making it less informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters (including nested objects) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to use parameters like filtros or paginacao, nor what the response contains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (campos and filtros have descriptions). The tool description does not explain any parameters, failing to add meaning beyond the schema. For example, 'agencia' is required but not described.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Imóveis de uma agência específica' clearly states the tool retrieves properties for a specific agency. It distinguishes from siblings like imoveis_pesquisar (general search) and imoveis_por_corretor (by agent). However, it is minimal and could be more precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit usage guidelines are provided. The description implies use when you need properties from a specific agency, but it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., imoveis_pesquisar for broader searches).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action with no mention of side effects, permissions, or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single concise sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with verb and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple parameterless tool, but lacks detail on what fields are listed and how they are structured, especially given no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist; baseline is 4 per rubric. Description adds meaning by explaining the tool's purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states verb 'Lista campos' and resource 'perfis de interesse e negócios', clearly distinguishing from similar sibling tools like clientes_campos or imoveis_campos, but could be more explicit about the entity it refers to.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state safety or side effects. Without annotations, the description carries the burden but provides minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence that directly states the purpose. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details about the format or content of the returned fields. Could be improved by specifying the structure or usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, baseline for parameter semantics is 4, but the description does not clarify what the tool returns. Schema coverage is 100% only because there are no parameters, so the description adds no value beyond stating its purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: providing available fields for customers. However, it doesn't specify what 'campos' entails or how they are returned, leaving some ambiguity about the output format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clientes_pesquisar or cliente_detalhes. The description does not indicate prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates the operation is permanent ('permanentemente'), which implies destructive behavior. However, no annotations are provided to fill gaps, and the description lacks details on side effects, authorization needs, or whether the action is reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description fully states the purpose, it does not mention return values (no output schema) or any confirmation of success. For a destructive tool, additional context about what happens after execution would be beneficial but not essential.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already documented in the input schema for the two parameters.
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 action: 'Remove permanentemente um vídeo de um imóvel' (permanently remove a video from a property). It specifies a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools which cover other operations like adding or altering imovel data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The description does not mention when not to use it or any related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It indicates a mutation ('Move') but does not disclose what happens if the stage does not exist, reversibility, required permissions, or error states.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no redundant information. Front-loaded with the core action and example.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool, the description is adequate but lacks detail on behavior (e.g., validation, error handling). No output schema, but return values are likely straightforward.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds examples of stage names ('ex: visita, proposta'), which helps clarify the expected values beyond the 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 moves a business to a new pipeline stage, with examples (visita, proposta). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like pipeline_campos and pipeline_listar.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pipeline_listar for viewing stages, cliente_* for client updates). No mention of prerequisites or restrictions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Lista'), but does not explicitly state idempotency, permissions, or other behavioral traits. The description is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single sentence with 7 words in Portuguese. It effectively communicates the purpose without superfluous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is minimal. It does not mention return format, pagination, or filtering. While sufficient for a simple list, it could be more complete by describing typical response fields.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters, so schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds context about the type of webhooks (ativos) beyond the 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 verb (Lista), resource (webhooks ativos), and context (integração em tempo real). It is distinct from sibling tools, which are about agendamentos, clientes, imoveis, leads, and pipeline.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('para integração em tempo real'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. However, no sibling webhook tools exist, so exclusions are unnecessary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-vista-loft MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fabiohsan-dev/mcp-vista-loft/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fabiohsan-dev/mcp-vista-loft)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-vista-loft MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fabiohsan-dev/mcp-vista-loft/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fabiohsan-dev/mcp-vista-loft)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/fabiohsan-dev/mcp-vista-loft'

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