Skip to main content
Glama

Conta Azul MCP

by io.github.douglac

contaazul_receivable_create

Cria um evento financeiro de conta a receber. data é o JSON do EventoFinanceiroRequest. OBRIGATÓRIOS: data_competencia (YYYY-MM-DD), valor (number), observacao, descricao, contato (UUID do cliente — via contaazul_list_people), conta_financeira (UUID — via contaazul_list_financial_accounts), condicao_pagamento.parcelas[] (cada: descricao, data_vencimento YYYY-MM-DD, nota, conta_financeira UUID, detalhe_valor:{valor_bruto obrigatório; valor_liquido derivado se omitido} — os aliases de leitura valor_composicao (o que contaazul_get_installment devolve) e de baixa composicao_valor são normalizados automaticamente pro detalhe_valor, metodo_pagamento com o enum EXATO da API: PIX_PAGAMENTO_INSTANTANEO, BOLETO_BANCARIO, TRANSFERENCIA_BANCARIA, CARTAO_CREDITO, CARTAO_DEBITO, DINHEIRO, DEPOSITO_BANCARIO, DEBITO_AUTOMATICO etc — formas curtas comuns como PIX/BOLETO/TED são normalizadas). OPCIONAL: rateio[] (cada: id_categoria UUID via contaazul_list_categories, valor, rateio_centro_custo[]). Retorna 202 + {protocolId,status} (processamento assíncrono).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
accountNo

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses async processing (returns 202), normalization of payment method enums and value field aliases, and required fields. Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is lengthy but efficient, front-loading the purpose and then listing fields. It is well-organized with clear sections for obrigatórios and opcionais, but slightly verbose with aliases and normalization info.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Without an output schema, the description explains the response (202 + protocolId/status) and references sibling tools for IDs. It covers all necessary aspects for a complex creation tool: mandatory/optional fields, enums, async behavior, and dependencies.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has 2 params with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by detailing the 'data' JSON structure, mandatory fields (e.g., 'data_competencia', 'valor'), and optional fields (e.g., 'rateio'). It adds significant meaning, though the explanation is dense and could benefit from structured examples.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with 'Cria um evento financeiro de conta a receber', which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'contaazul_payable_create' (payable) and 'contaazul_list_receivables' (list).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides detailed mandatory and optional fields, and references to other tools for obtaining IDs (e.g., 'contaazul_list_people', 'contaazul_list_financial_accounts'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or list alternatives, but the context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Conta Azul MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools are easily confused: person_write_create/person_write_update and sale_write_create/sale_write_update duplicate the same operation with an internal action flag, and authenticate vs connect both deal with connection setup. Also, list_accounts (company installs) and list_financial_accounts (bank accounts) have similar names but different meanings.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming patterns vary widely: verb_noun (create_budget, list_people) is mixed with noun_verb (contract_write, person_delete, product_write). The contaazul_ prefix is applied inconsistently, and standalone names like authenticate, connect, marketplace, and toolkit_info break the pattern. Flattened action pairs add redundant, non-idiomatic names.

Tool Count1/5

With 57 tools, this server exceeds the 50+ threshold for an extreme count. The tool list is bloated with generic platform tools (authenticate, marketplace, report_bug) alongside dozens of domain-specific ones, making it overwhelming for agents to parse and select from.

Completeness4/5

The Conta Azul domain is well represented: people, products, services, sales, budgets, contracts, financial accounts, receivables/payables, settlements, charges, invoices, and transfers all have read/create/list operations, and most have update/cancel/delete. Minor gaps like product update/delete or service update exist due to API limitations, but the core workflows are covered.

Resources