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 minimal behavioral context beyond this, such as the output format options, but doesn't detail error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. With annotations providing core traits, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement, args section, and examples, all in a compact format. Every sentence adds value, but the example could be more informative (e.g., showing format usage). It's front-loaded and efficient with minimal waste.

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 low complexity (1 parameter), rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and examples, though it could benefit from more usage context or error details. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, making this adequate.

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. It clearly explains both parameters: 'codigo' as the unique part code with an example, and 'formato' as 'markdown' or 'json' options. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could elaborate on default values or constraints.

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 specific action ('Retorna todos os dados') and resource ('uma peça específica'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'autopecas_listar_pecas' (list all) and 'autopecas_buscar_peca' (search). It specifies retrieval by unique code, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

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 implies usage when detailed data for a specific part is needed, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'autopecas_buscar_peca' or 'autopecas_verificar_estoque'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context partially inferred.

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