Mutações em cartão: block (body reason opcional), unblock. Aceita accounts com 1 entrada (ou omitido em install single-account) — o card_id existe em apenas uma empresa.
[Flattened action: unblock]
Bulk support: accepts card_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | ||
| card_id | Yes | ||
| accounts | No | ||
| card_ids | 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 show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it is a mutation (unblock), supports bulk execution, and that card_id belongs to one company. It does not contradict annotations, but lacks details on side effects, error behavior, or whether the action is reversible. The added context is useful but not comprehensive.
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 relatively short but mixes languages (Portuguese and English) and includes tangential information about 'block'. It is not as streamlined as it could be, but it conveys essential points. A more structured, single-focus description would improve clarity.
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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and is a mutation, the description lacks completeness: it does not describe return values, error handling, authentication requirements, or the effect of the operation in detail. It covers basic parameter semantics and bulk support but misses important behavioral and post-condition information.
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?
Input schema has 0% description coverage. The description clarifies that reason is optional, card_id is required, accounts accepts at most one entry, and card_ids enables bulk. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not explain the exact format or constraints for each parameter, so it partially compensates.
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 'Mutações em cartão: unblock' and clarifies 'Flattened action: unblock', clearly indicating the tool unblocks a card. Although it also mentions 'block' in the same sentence, the intent is disambiguated by the tool name and the flattened action note. The purpose is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools by name.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like the sibling 'contasimples_card_write_block'. The description does not specify prerequisites, recommended scenarios, or when not to use it. The mention of 'accounts' and 'card_ids' implies some context but lacks clear usage direction.
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.
Almost all tools have clear purposes, especially with the contasimples_ prefix. Some overlap between statement and summary, but descriptions differentiate well. The general tools (marketplace, report_bug, etc.) are completely different from the financial ones, which reduces potential confusion.
The domain tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., contasimples_card_write_block). However, the inclusion of general tools like authenticate, connect, marketplace breaks the pattern. This inconsistency lowers the score.
With 24 tools covering authentication, financial operations, and platform utilities, the number is reasonable for a moderately complex MCP server. It doesn't feel excessive or too thin.
The toolset covers key financial operations (balance, bills, cards, statements, summary) and some mutations (block/unblock, create invite, delete user). However, missing CRUD for several entities (e.g., no update user, no create card, no delete invite) leaves gaps. The presence of platform utilities adds breadth but not depth.