Lists custom field definitions for contacts or conversations so assistants can retrieve available attribute schemas from Evo CRM for mapping or validation.
Lista definições de campos personalizados de contatos ou conversas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| attribute_model | No | Campos de contato ou de conversa. | contact_attribute |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that it returns definitions (schema of custom fields) rather than field values, which is useful but thin — nothing about ordering, volume, or whether definitions include inactive fields.
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?
One tightly written sentence with no filler, and the resource being listed leads the sentence. It could be marginally stronger by front-loading the contact-vs-conversation scope as a selection cue, but nothing here is wasted.
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?
The tool is simple (zero required params, full schema coverage, clear annotations) so little is needed. However, with no output schema, the description does not say what a returned 'definition' contains, which is a real gap for an agent deciding whether this call answers its question.
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 100% and the single parameter has an enum with a documented default, so the schema carries the semantics. The description's 'contatos ou conversas' mirrors the enum values without adding format, fallback, or default-behavior detail.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: it lists custom field definitions, and clarifies the scope is contact or conversation attributes. An agent can distinguish it from value-oriented siblings like contacts_list, though the description does not name any sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied by the phrase 'de contatos ou conversas', which hints at the two scopes but gives no when-to-use criteria, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as labels_list or message_templates_list for other metadata lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.