Skip to main content
Glama

Conta Azul MCP

by io.github.douglac

contaazul_settle_installment

Registra a baixa (recebimento/pagamento) de uma parcela. id é o UUID da PARCELA (via contaazul_list_receivables / _list_payables / _get_installment). data é o JSON da baixa: data_pagamento (YYYY-MM-DD), composicao_valor {valor_bruto, multa, juros, desconto, taxa, valor_liquido}, conta_financeira (UUID em string, via contaazul_list_financial_accounts) e metodo_pagamento, enum EXATO da API: DINHEIRO, PIX_PAGAMENTO_INSTANTANEO, BOLETO_BANCARIO, TRANSFERENCIA_BANCARIA, CARTAO_CREDITO, CARTAO_DEBITO, CARTAO_CREDITO_VIA_LINK, CHEQUE, DEPOSITO_BANCARIO, CARTEIRA_DIGITAL, CASHBACK, CREDITO_LOJA, CREDITO_VIRTUAL, OUTRO (formas curtas como PIX, BOLETO, CARTAO ou TRANSFERENCIA dão 400); observacao é opcional. O campo versao (controle de concorrência) é buscado automaticamente. Retorna a baixa com id_reconciliacao.

Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
idsNo
dataYes
accountNo

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes concurrency control (`versao` auto-fetched), bulk support, and a warning about incorrect payment method causing a 400 error. However, it does not disclose side effects like marking the installment as settled or possible failure modes.

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 reasonably concise for the amount of information provided. It is structured with purpose first, then parameter explanations, and finally bulk support. It is not overly verbose, though some details could be reorganized.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main aspects: required fields, enum values, error conditions, and bulk execution. However, it omits the `account` parameter and does not explain return value details or error handling beyond the specific 400 error.

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

Parameters3/5

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

With 0% schema coverage, the description explains `id` and `data` parameters in detail, including the full list of allowed payment method enums. However, the `ids` parameter is only briefly mentioned for bulk support, and the `account` parameter is not described at all. This leaves a gap for two of four parameters.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states it registers the receipt/payment of an installment. It uses a specific verb ('Registra a baixa') and resource ('parcela'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'update_settlement' and 'delete_settlement'. However, it could be more explicit that it creates a settlement record.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description does not guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that the `id` comes from list/get installment tools, implying prerequisites, but provides no explicit when-not or comparison to related tools like 'update_settlement' or 'delete_settlement'.

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