Lista os módulos do sistema Protheus nesta instalação. Indica o que está ativo e ajuda a explicar por que uma API responde ou não.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| order | No | ||
| expand | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| filter | No | ||
| params | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| sql_filter | 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 cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool indicates what is active, which is a useful behavioral insight beyond annotations. No contradiction found.
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?
Two concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and add a key behavioral detail. No wasted words; structure is efficient.
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?
Despite being a read-only list tool, it has 9 optional parameters and no output schema. The description does not cover pagination, filtering semantics, response format, or any parameter usage, leaving a significant gap for an agent to call it correctly.
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%, and the description provides no information about any of the 9 parameters (page, filter, expand, fields, sql_filter, etc.). The agent has no guidance on how to use these generic-looking parameters for this specific 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 clearly states the action (lista/lists) and the resource (módulos do sistema Protheus) and adds a diagnostic purpose (helps explain why an API responds or not). It distinguishes the tool's role from other modules but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling diagnostic tools like protheus_diagnostico.
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 implies usage for understanding active modules and diagnosing API behavior, but it does not state explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions or name alternative tools. The context is clear enough to infer but lacks direct guidance.
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.
Each protheus_* tool targets a distinct ERP entity or API, and descriptions explain the resource and key arguments, so an agent can usually pick the right one. The main ambiguities are the generic protheus_api, which overlaps with every dedicated reader, and the trio protheus_catalogo/protheus_diagnostico/protheus_modulos, all of which are about API/module availability.
The domain tools consistently use the protheus_ prefix in snake_case with a descriptive resource suffix, which is predictable once the pattern is recognized. There are minor deviations such as protheus_list_accounts using an English verb and the platform-level tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, show_version, toolkit_info) not following the protheus_ prefix at all.
32 tools is above the threshold where a tool list becomes heavy for agents to scan, even though the ERP domain is broad. The set could be split into a focused Protheus reader plus a platform-management server, or several entities could be combined behind parameterized tools.
The read-only surface covers a wide range of common Protheus areas (customers, products, stock, sales, production, pricing, CRM) and protheus_api with catalogo/diagnostico allows access to additional official/custom read routes. However, there are no create/update/delete tools at all, and major ERP areas such as financial movements and HR are absent, so mutation workflows dead-end in this server.