Lista as parcelas de UM evento financeiro (passe id_evento). A API v2 não tem listagem chapada de todas as parcelas — pra varrer contas a receber/pagar use contaazul_list_receivables / contaazul_list_payables.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| id_evento | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / account / descriptionRemoved value: -"Quando o install tem mais de uma empresa Conta Azul: company_id, label, ou parcial. Ver contaazul_list_accounts."Input schema / properties / id_evento / descriptionRemoved value: -"UUID do evento financeiro (obrigatório)"Input schema / properties / data_vencimento_fimRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / data_vencimento_inicioRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / id_eventoAdded value: +{
+ "description": "UUID do evento financeiro (obrigatório)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / paginaRemoved value: -{
- "maximum": 9007199254740991,
- "minimum": 1,
- "type": "integer"
-}Input schema / properties / statusRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / tamanho_paginaRemoved value: -{
- "maximum": 100,
- "minimum": 1,
- "type": "integer"
-}Input schema / properties / tipoRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "id_evento"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds context about the API limitation (no flat listing) and the scoping to one event, which is useful. No contradictions.
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 with front-loaded purpose and a clear alternative. Every word earns its place, no redundancy.
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 0% parameter descriptions and no output schema, the description is adequate for core purpose but lacks details on return format, pagination, or optional parameter behavior. Could be more complete.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains id_evento but not the optional account parameter. Partial coverage leaves some ambiguity.
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 lists installments for one financial event, specifying the required parameter. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_receivables and list_payables, which are for scanning all receivables/payables.
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?
Explicitly tells when to use this tool (for a single event) and when not to, offering alternative tools for broader scans. This provides clear guidance for the agent.
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.