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 aspects. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies the output columns, mentions pagination behavior, and indicates the tool provides a 'complete view' without restrictions. However, it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 clear sections: purpose statement, scope clarification, output columns, parameters with details, and usage examples. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter listing is somewhat verbose. The information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

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 complexity (multiple filters, pagination, output format options) and the presence of both comprehensive annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, differentiation from siblings, parameter semantics, output structure, and usage examples. The output schema will handle return value documentation, so the description appropriately focuses on usage guidance.

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%, but the description compensates by listing all parameters with their purposes, allowed values, and defaults. It provides concrete examples of how to use each filter parameter. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or edge cases beyond what's implied by the examples.

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: 'Lista todos os leitos hospitalares com paginação e filtros combinados.' It specifies the verb (list), resource (hospital beds), and scope (with pagination and combined filters). It distinguishes from siblings like 'leitos_listar_enfermaria' and 'leitos_listar_uti' by noting it's a 'complete view' without room type restrictions.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It states it's the 'complete view equivalent to Agent Diretoria do N8N — without room type restriction,' implying it's more comprehensive than filtered siblings. It also gives specific examples of filter combinations, helping the agent understand appropriate use cases.

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