AutoPeças MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent write operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies this is a WRITE operation, requires EDITOR permissions for the Service Account, and only updates the Status_Limpeza field while locating by ID_Leito. It doesn't mention rate limits or error handling specifics.

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, operational context, requirements, parameters, returns, and examples. The description is appropriately sized but could be slightly more concise in the operational context section. Every section adds value.

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 write operation with 1 parameter object containing 2 fields, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety aspects, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, permission requirements, parameter meanings with examples, and return expectations.

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 description fully compensates by clearly explaining both parameters in the Args section with examples. It defines leito_id as the bed ID to update and status_limpeza as the new cleaning status value, providing concrete examples like 'Concluído', 'Pendente', 'Em Andamento'.

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 ('Atualiza o campo Status_Limpeza'), the resource ('de um leito na planilha Google Sheets'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on updating only the cleaning status field rather than listing, notifying, or checking availability like other leitos_* tools.

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 about when to use this tool (to update cleaning status of a specific bed) and mentions it's equivalent to a specific N8N node, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare with alternatives like leitos_obter_detalhes_leito for read operations.

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