Cadastro de produtos (LinxProdutos): nome, NCM, CEST, referência, cor/tamanho, marca/linha/setor. Filtre por janela de atualização (dt_update_inicio/fim) e cnpj_emp.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| cnpj_emp | No | ||
| referencia | No | ||
| cod_produto | No | ||
| dt_update_fim | No | ||
| dt_update_inicio | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "type": "number"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds that it supports filtering by update window and cnpj_emp, which is useful behavioral context about the query scope. However, it does not mention return format, pagination behavior, or how results are ordered. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides moderate value.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose, lists key fields, and mentions filtering. There is zero fluff or redundancy. Every word contributes meaning.
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 read-only list tool with 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not state the shape of the response, whether pagination is used, or how to retrieve all products. It also fails to point to related product tools, which would help an agent navigate the toolset. While safety is covered by annotations, the operational details are insufficient.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It explains that dt_update_inicio/fim and cnpj_emp can be used as filters, and it lists product attributes (nome, NCM, etc.) that are not even parameters. It does not explain limit, offset, account, cod_produto, or referencia. The description only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation, leaving several parameters 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 states it is a product registration (Cadastro de produtos) and lists the fields it covers (nome, NCM, CEST, referência, cor/tamanho, marca/linha/setor). This gives a solid understanding of the resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like microvix_produtos_detalhes or microvix_produtos_inventario, so an agent might not know which tool to pick for detailed vs inventory data.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description mentions filtering by update window and cnpj_emp, which hints at usage scenarios, but it never states when to select this specific tool over others. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct: platform utilities (authenticate, connect, marketplace) have clear separate roles, and microvix_* tools each target a different entity (clientes, lojas, movimento, pedidos, produtos variants, etc.). However, the marketplace tool has multiple sub-functions (search, describe, invoke, install) that could blur boundaries, but its description is thorough enough to prevent confusion.
All tools use consistent snake_case naming. Platform tools are short descriptive words (authenticate, connect, marketplace), while domain-specific tools all follow the 'microvix_entity' pattern (e.g., microvix_clientes_fornec, microvix_produtos). No mixing of conventions or inconsistent verb styles.
With 16 tools, the server is slightly above the ideal range (3-15) but still well-scoped. The platform utilities (6 tools) are necessary for authentication, marketplace interaction, and status; the 10 microvix-* tools cover the core domain tables without bloating. The count is reasonable for a server that combines platform and data query capabilities.
The microvix domain tools provide comprehensive read access to key entities (clientes, lojas, movimento, pedidos, produtos, inventário, vendedores), but there are no write/update tools (e.g., create_cliente, update_produto). For a data query server this may be acceptable, but the absence of CRUD operations is a notable gap if the purpose is to manage Microvix data fully.