AutoPeças MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operations, the description explains this is a 'dashboard' view with two specific panels (occupancy and cleaning), shows what counts are displayed, and mentions it supports specific agent reports. This gives the agent a clear understanding of what data will be returned and how it's organized.

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 front-loaded: it immediately states the tool's purpose, then details the two panels, provides context about agent views, documents parameters with clear formatting, and includes practical examples. Every sentence adds value with zero waste or redundancy.

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 (aggregated dashboard with filtering), the description provides complete context. It explains what data is returned (occupancy and cleaning counts), documents both parameters thoroughly despite 0% schema coverage, provides usage examples, and mentions agent context. With an output schema present, the description appropriately focuses on what the tool does rather than return value details.

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 carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It successfully documents both parameters: 'tipo_quarto' as an optional filter by room type with examples, and 'formato' as either 'markdown' or 'json' with the default implied. The examples provide practical usage guidance, though it could be more explicit about the default 'markdown' format.

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: it provides a dashboard of occupancy and cleaning status grouped by room type, with specific counts for Status_Ocupacao and Status_Limpeza. It distinguishes itself from siblings like leitos_listar_leitos or leitos_verificar_disponibilidade by focusing on aggregated summary views rather than detailed listings or availability checks.

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: it's equivalent to the 'Agent Diretoria' view and supports reports for 'Agent Enfermaria'. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, but the context implies it's for summary reporting rather than detailed operations.

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