Mutações em contatos Guru. Ações: create (data); update (id + data); anonymize (id, LGPD, irreversível); create_etickets (id + data).
[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?
The annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds some useful context, like bulk support and the fact that anonymization is LGPD-related and irreversible; however, those extra points concern other actions, not the current flattened create tool. It does not describe the outcome or any side effects of a create call.
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 short and somewhat front-loaded, but it spends most of its space listing actions that are not part of this flattened create tool. The phrase '[Flattened action: create]' adds confusion rather than practical meaning, while the bulk-support line is concise and useful.
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?
For a create endpoint with 4 parameters, one nested object, and no output schema, the description is materially incomplete. An agent gets the general area of functionality but not enough information to correctly construct a create request, especially regarding required data fields or account usage.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for the missing parameter explanations. It explains only that `data` is used for create and that `ids` enable bulk execution; `id` and `account` are left unexplained, and the structure of `data` is not described. This is insufficient for a 4-parameter nested-object 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 says 'Mutações em contatos Guru' and lists multiple actions (create, update, anonymize, create_etickets), but it does not clearly state that this specific tool creates a single contact. The bracketed '[Flattened action: create]' helps, but the remaining action list creates ambiguity and fails to distinguish this tool cleanly from its sibling write tools.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as guru_contacts_write_update or guru_contacts_write_anonymize. It implies the create action takes `data` and that bulk execution can use `ids`, but the unqualified list of actions is misleading: the agent cannot confidently know this tool is only for creating contacts.
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.