Lista os negócios da carteira do corretor (cotações, apólices e propostas) em um PERÍODO (em meses). Cada item traz o segurado (nome, CPF/CNPJ, contato), ramo, status, vigência e, quando for auto, placa e modelo. Aceita busca por texto e paginação. Use para "o que fechei/cotei nos últimos N meses" ou para achar o negócio de um cliente.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| modo | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| texto | No | ||
| periodo_meses | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavior details: the returned fields per item (segurado, ramo, status, vigência, plus vehicle details for auto) and support for text search and pagination. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.
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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the primary action and scope, then lists key output fields and usage guidance. It is reasonably concise for the information it conveys, though it could be tightened without losing meaning.
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 5 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description needs to explain return values, parameter roles, pagination behavior, and defaults. It covers the return-item fields and hints at some parameters, but leaves 'modo' undefined and does not describe response structure, errors, or pagination limits. This is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.
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 must compensate for parameter explanation. It hints at 'periodo_meses' via 'PERÍODO (em meses)', at 'texto' via 'busca por texto', and at page/limit via 'paginação', but it does not explain 'modo' at all, nor does it give defaults, constraints, or formats for any parameter. The coverage is partial and insufficient for a 5-parameter tool.
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 states a specific verb ('Lista'), a clear resource ('negócios da carteira do corretor'), and distinguishes the content (cotações, apólices, propostas) and period scope. It clearly separates this from sibling tools by describing the exact portfolio-deal listing purpose.
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 gives explicit use cases ('Use para "o que fechei/cotei nos últimos N meses" ou para achar o negócio de um cliente'), which tells an agent when to invoke it. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the use cases are concrete and sufficient for routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct function: CEP lookup, quote validation, dashboard stats, account listing, business listing, insurer listing, and separate platform utilities for auth, connectivity, marketplace, bug reports, version, and toolkit state. No two tools overlap in purpose, so an agent can clearly differentiate them.
Tool names mix conventions: some are bare nouns (agger_cep, agger_negocios, marketplace), some use verb_noun (agger_list_accounts, report_bug, show_version), one is noun_verb (agger_cotacao_validar), and several are generic single verbs (authenticate, connect). This inconsistency makes the naming pattern unpredictable and harder to infer.
The 12-tool set is well-scoped: 6 domain-specific Agger tools cover the core insurance broker workflows, and 6 generic platform tools handle authentication, connectivity, marketplace operations, and diagnostics. Each tool earns its place without unnecessary bloat.
The domain coverage is partial: the server supports listing businesses, validating quotes, and viewing insurers, but lacks create/update/delete operations for quotes or detailed single-item views. Some gaps exist (e.g., no create quote, no get_business_detail), but agents can work around them by using the list and validation tools, and the platform utilities address meta-level needs.