AutoPeças MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide excellent coverage (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: false), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context about the output format options ('markdown' or 'json') and provides concrete examples of parameter usage, which helps the agent understand how to invoke it correctly. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Perfectly structured and front-loaded: purpose statement first, then Args section with parameters, then Exemplos with concrete usage. Every sentence earns its place - no fluff, all actionable information. The bilingual presentation (Portuguese description with clear structure) is efficient.

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 simple read-only nature, excellent annotation coverage, clear parameters, existence of an output schema (so return values don't need description), and comprehensive sibling context, this description is complete. It provides everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly among the available bed management tools.

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 documents both parameters (leito_id and formato) with examples for leito_id and enum values for formato, which adds meaningful semantics. However, it doesn't explain the 'params' wrapper object structure or provide deeper context about parameter constraints beyond what's evident from 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 specific action ('Retorna todos os dados' - returns all data) and resource ('de um leito específico' - of a specific bed), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'leitos_listar_leitos' (list beds) or 'leitos_verificar_disponibilidade' (check availability). It precisely identifies the lookup mechanism ('pelo campo ID_Leito' - by the ID_Leito field).

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 when to use this tool: when detailed information about a specific bed is needed, identified by its ID. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear given the sibling tools (e.g., use list tools for overviews, this for details).

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