AutoPeças MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds valuable context about its role in patient admission workflows and immediate availability checking, which goes beyond what annotations convey. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 efficient: purpose statement first, usage context second, then parameter documentation with examples. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. The Portuguese language doesn't affect conciseness scoring.

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 read-only query tool with comprehensive annotations and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics with examples, and behavioral context about its role in patient admission workflows.

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: tipo_quarto for filtering by room type with examples ('UTI', 'Enfermaria') and formato for output format ('markdown' or 'json'). The description provides practical examples showing how to use these parameters, adding significant value beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Exibe leitos com Status_Ocupacao = 'Disponível', com resumo por tipo de quarto' (Displays beds with Status_Occupation = 'Available', with summary by room type). It specifies the exact filtering condition and distinguishes it from siblings like leitos_listar_leitos or leitos_resumo_ocupacao by focusing only on available beds for immediate patient admission.

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 usage guidance: 'Ferramenta central para admissão de pacientes: identifica quais leitos estão livres para ocupação imediata' (Central tool for patient admission: identifies which beds are free for immediate occupancy). It clearly states when to use this tool (for patient admission) and distinguishes it from other bed-related tools that might show all beds or occupancy summaries.

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