Mutações em contatos Guru. Ações: create (data); update (id + data); anonymize (id, LGPD, irreversível); create_etickets (id + data).
[Flattened action: create_etickets]
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 description adds the behavioral detail of bulk execution support, which annotations do not provide. It also labels the operation as a mutation, consistent with readOnlyHint false. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., sending emails, triggering events) or clarify whether the operation is reversible, though destructiveHint false suggests non-destructive. Beyond bulk support, transparency is limited.
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 includes a list of all actions from the original parent tool (create, update, anonymize) that are not relevant to this flattened action. This extraneous content adds clutter and could confuse the agent. The flattened action clarification is helpful, but the structure could be tightened to focus solely on create_etickets and its parameters.
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, a nested 'data' object, and no output schema, the description does not provide enough context for proper invocation. It leaves 'account' unexplained, gives no detail on the required structure of 'data', and says nothing about return values or side effects. While bulk support is mentioned, the overall completeness is insufficient for a write operation with a nested schema.
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?
The description explains that create_etickets uses 'id + data' and mentions 'ids' for bulk support, providing some meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not describe the 'account' parameter at all, and gives no detail on the structure of 'data' (what fields are expected for eticket creation). Since schema coverage is 0%, the description only partially compensates, leaving several parameters ambiguous.
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 action as 'create_etickets' via the flattened action note, and names both the resource (contacts Guru) and the operation. However, the initial listing of multiple actions (create, update, anonymize, create_etickets) without immediately focusing on the intended one creates slight ambiguity, even though it is resolved later.
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 mentions bulk support ('accepts ids for batched execution') which hints at when to use this tool (e.g., for processing multiple contacts at once). However, it does not provide explicit guidance on choosing this tool over siblings like guru_etickets_write_create_invitations or when not to use it, nor does it mention any prerequisites or use cases.
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.