Conta ZapSign (leitura). Ações: plan (info do plano: créditos, status, período); users (page — lista usuários da conta, 25/página).
[Flattened action: users]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | 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 aligns with annotations (read-only, idempotent) by saying 'leitura' (reading). It adds the pagination detail of 25 per page, but does not disclose any additional behavioral aspects like rate limits or response structure. Given the annotations already cover safety, this is adequate but not enhanced.
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 compact but structurally confusing because it mixes two potential sub-actions. The inclusion of 'plan' may be irrelevant or redundant given the tool name, making it less focused than it could be. It is not overly verbose but lacks clarity.
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 description provides some context about returning users per page, but it does not specify the output format or fully clarify that it returns a list of users only. The ambiguity about 'plan' and the lack of a clear output specification reduce completeness. Without an output schema, more explanatory detail is needed.
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 only indirectly references the 'page' parameter (via '25/página') and vaguely mentions 'account' as 'conta', but does not explain what the account parameter is or how it should be used. The schema lacks descriptions, so the coverage is below 50%, requiring more explicit parameter information.
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 states the tool reads a ZapSign account, but it lists two actions (plan and users) while the tool name is 'users', causing ambiguity about the actual purpose. The core function (listing users) is mentioned, but the inclusion of 'plan' muddies the intent.
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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools such as zapsign_account_plan or user creation tools. It lacks any mention of alternative tools or specific use cases, leaving the agent uncertain about selection.
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 tool has a distinct name and purpose, with clear separation between read and write actions. However, the high number of similarly-prefixed tools (e.g., zapsign_documents_write_*) and the overlap between create and create_from_template could occasionally cause misselection.
Domain tools follow a consistent zapsign_<resource>_<action> pattern, with writes marked by _write_. However, platform-level tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) break the pattern, and zapsign_list_accounts deviates from the resource-prefix convention.
35 tools is excessive, especially since many are flattened actions from a smaller set of underlying operations. The inclusion of non-domain platform tools further inflates the count, making the tool list feel heavy and harder to navigate.
The core ZapSign domain is well covered: documents, signers, templates, webhooks, checks, and account management all have CRUD-like operations. Minor gaps exist, such as no listing endpoint for checks and no webhook list (due to API limitations), but these are not fatal for typical workflows.