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. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it explains the tool's equivalence to 'Agent UTI do N8N', describes the two report types it supports, and provides concrete examples of how to use it. While it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, it adds meaningful behavioral context that helps an agent understand what this tool does in practice.

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 and efficiently organized. It starts with the core purpose, provides equivalence context, lists supported reports, then presents parameters and examples. Every sentence adds value: the first states purpose, second provides system context, third explains report types, and the examples demonstrate practical usage. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 (filtered listing with multiple parameters), the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, provides parameter semantics (compensating for 0% schema coverage), and includes practical examples. With annotations covering safety aspects and an output schema presumably handling return values, this description provides excellent contextual completeness 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 the full burden. It provides a clear 'Args' section with all 5 parameters, their types, and brief explanations. The examples demonstrate how to use key parameters like 'status_ocupacao'. While it doesn't explain every detail (like the 1-100 range for 'limit'), it provides substantial semantic information that compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 apenas os leitos do tipo UTI (Tipo_Quarto = "UTI")' - specific verb (listar/lista) and resource (leitos UTI). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'leitos_listar_leitos' (all beds) and 'leitos_listar_enfermaria' (different bed type). The equivalence to 'Agent UTI do N8N' provides additional context about its role.

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 mentions two specific report types from a menu ('Relatório de Dias Internados' and 'Quantidade de Pacientes Internados') and gives three concrete examples with parameter configurations. The examples show different use cases: 'Pacientes na UTI', 'Leitos de UTI disponíveis', and 'Dias de internação na UTI'.

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