Usuários/membros da conta Guru (leitura). Ações: list (cursor); get (id); activities (id).
[Flattened action: list]
Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| ids | No | ||
| cursor | 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?
With annotations readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, the safety profile is clear. The description adds the 'Bulk support' note, which is useful behavioral context not captured by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior beyond a 'cursor' parameter, nor response structure. Given the annotations cover safety, the description's additional value is moderate, so a 3 is appropriate.
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 concise (2-3 sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a note on bulk support. It doesn't waste words, but the 'Ações' list is slightly redundant with action names, and the flattened action note adds clarity but could be more integrated.
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?
The tool has no output schema, 4 parameters with no descriptions, and the description is sparse. For a list tool, it doesn't explain return format, pagination, or how 'account' is used. The bulk support note is a plus, but the overall context is insufficient for an agent to use the tool confidently without additional inference.
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 schema has 4 parameters (id, ids, cursor, account) with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'list (cursor); get (id); activities (id)' which partially explains id and cursor, but not 'ids' or 'account'. The bulk support note explains 'ids' is for batch, but 'account' is completely unexplained. Since description has to compensate for low schema coverage, it falls short.
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 indicates this tool lists users/members of a Guru account, and mentions available actions (list, get, activities), but it is not immediately clear that the current tool is specifically for the 'list' action. The flattened action note provides some clarity, but the tool name and description could be mistaken for a general users tool rather than list-focused. It distinguishes from siblings like guru_users_get, but the description is somewhat vague about what exactly this tool returns.
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,' implying a use case for batch operations)Skip. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the sibling tools (guru_users_get, guru_users_activities) suggest the distinctions. The lack of explicit 'when' or 'when not' guidance lowers the score from 4 to 3.
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.