AutoPeças MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context about pagination support and optional filtering capabilities, though it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication requirements. No contradiction with annotations exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

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

The description is perfectly structured: a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by organized parameter documentation with examples. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The bilingual presentation (Portuguese description with Portuguese parameter names) maintains consistency.

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 this is a read-only listing tool with comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) and an output schema exists, the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, parameters with examples, and behavioral aspects like pagination and filtering, making it fully adequate for agent usage.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden for parameter documentation. It provides clear explanations for all 6 parameters with examples, but doesn't add semantic context beyond what's already explicitly listed in the Args section. The examples help illustrate usage but don't deepen understanding of parameter interactions.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb ('Lista') and resource ('todas as peças cadastradas na base AutoPeças'), specifying it's a comprehensive listing operation. It distinguishes from siblings like 'autopecas_buscar_peca' (search specific) and 'autopecas_listar_categorias'/'autopecas_listar_marcas' (list metadata rather than parts).

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 usage ('com paginação e filtros opcionais') and includes practical examples that illustrate when to apply specific filters. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like 'autopecas_buscar_peca' for targeted searches.

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