AutoPeças MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about what fields are searched (nome, código, descrição) and the return format, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior beyond the offset parameter. With good annotation coverage, this earns a baseline 3 for adding some 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.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Well-structured with purpose statement, detailed Args section, Returns explanation, and Examples. Every section earns its place. Could be slightly more concise by integrating the purpose more tightly with the Args, but overall efficient and well-organized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with multiple filters), the description provides complete guidance: clear purpose, detailed parameter documentation with examples, return format explanation, and usage examples. With annotations covering safety aspects and the description handling parameter semantics thoroughly, this is complete enough for an agent to use the tool effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage (the schema has no descriptions at the top level, only within nested definitions), the description carries the full burden. It provides comprehensive parameter documentation in the Args section with clear explanations, examples, and defaults for all 7 parameters. This fully compensates for the schema coverage gap and adds significant value beyond what the nested schema definitions provide.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Busca peças na base AutoPeças por texto livre (nome, código ou descrição)' - specific verb ('Busca') and resource ('peças na base AutoPeças') with scope ('texto livre'). It distinguishes from siblings like autopecas_listar_pecas (which likely lists all parts without search) and autopecas_obter_detalhes (which gets details for a specific part).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: for free-text search across name, code, or description. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear given the sibling tools. The examples help illustrate appropriate usage scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.