Mutações em listas de bloqueio Guru. Ações: create (data); update (id + data); delete (id).
[Flattened action: create]
Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| ids | No | ||
| data | No | ||
| account | 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 mark the tool as non-read-only, and the description adds that it performs mutations and supports batched execution via ids. It does not disclose return behavior, account requirements, or idempotency details beyond the annotations, but it does not contradict the provided hints.
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 compact and front-loaded with the domain and action list. The inclusion of update/delete actions is somewhat redundant for a create-specific tool, but overall it is concise and free of unnecessary prose.
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?
With 4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this short description is not sufficient. It lacks any explanation of return values, the account parameter, the data schema, or clear differentiation from sibling write tools.
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 the burden of explaining parameters. It maps create to 'data' and mentions 'ids' for bulk execution, which is partial help, but it leaves 'id' vs 'ids' relationships, the structure of 'data', and the purpose of 'account' completely unexplained.
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 identifies the resource (Guru blocklists) and the mutation nature, with 'Flattened action: create' explicitly stating the intended operation. However, it also lists update/delete actions that belong to sibling tools, so it does not clearly differentiate this create-only tool from guru_blocklists_write_update and guru_blocklists_write_delete.
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 context is partially implied: 'create (data)' suggests when to use the data parameter, and 'Bulk support: accepts ids' hints at batch usage. But there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, nor any reference to sibling tools for update/delete alternatives.
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.
The tool names themselves are distinct (e.g., guru_subscriptions_get vs guru_subscriptions_activities), but the descriptions for each resource are identical except for a '[Flattened action: X]' tag, listing all possible actions. This repetition can confuse agents into selecting the wrong tool, especially since many tools share the same description body. The naming is clear but the descriptive overlap undermines disambiguation.
The majority of tools follow a consistent pattern: guru_<resource>_<action> for reads and guru_<resource>_write_<action> for writes. However, there are outliers like 'authenticate', 'connect', 'marketplace', 'report_bug', etc., which break the pattern. Within the Guru API itself, the naming is highly predictable, but the occasional non-Guru tool reduces overall consistency.
With 101 tools, the server is grossly over-scoped. The API has been fragmented into a separate tool for every action across many resources (e.g., subscriptions alone have 15+ tools). This is far beyond the typical MCP server size and makes the tool list overwhelming and impractical for agents to navigate. The extreme granularity offers no benefit over a smaller, well-organized set.
The tool set covers a wide range of operations: CRUD for contacts, subscriptions, transactions, products, coupons, webhooks, and more, including write actions like refunds, chargebacks, and subscription modifications. The domain appears well-covered, though some resources lack create operations (e.g., no create subscription) and there are a few gaps like missing explicit update for transactions. Overall, the coverage is thorough for the stated API surface.