Gera o relatório de CONCILIAÇÃO DE CARTÕES (GerarRelatorioDeConciliacaoDeCartoes) por período. É a base da conciliação (pareia com o Banco MCP). Pode devolver um id, baixe com f360_baixar_relatorio.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| data_fim | Yes | ||
| data_inicio | Yes | ||
| cnpj_empresas | No | ||
| tipo_conciliacao | 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?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds that the tool may return an ID and requires a subsequent download. It also explains its role in reconciliation. No contradiction with annotations.
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 sentences convey the core purpose and usage flow efficiently. Some detail could be structured better, but it is front-loaded with key information.
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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the purpose and a multi-step flow (generate then download). However, it omits parameter details, error handling, and response format, leaving gaps for an agent to use 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 coverage is 0%, but the description only mentions 'por período' covering the required date parameters. It does not explain the optional parameters (account, cnpj_empresas, tipo_conciliacao) leaving significant gaps for the agent.
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 generates a card reconciliation report by period ('Gera o relatório de CONCILIAÇÃO DE CARTÕES ... por período'). It distinguishes from sibling report tools like f360_relatorio_contabil and f360_relatorio_transferencias. The verb 'gera' and resource are specific.
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?
It explains the tool is the basis of reconciliation and pairs with Bank MCP, providing context. It instructs to download the result using f360_baixar_relatorio. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct, especially the f360_* family which separates listing, detail, and report generation per resource. However, 'authenticate' and 'connect' both deal with connection state, and 'f360_list_accounts' vs 'f360_listar_planos_contas' could be confused without reading descriptions closely.
Naming is inconsistent: generic tools use simple English verbs (connect, show_version), while financial tools mix English (list_accounts) and Portuguese (listar_notas, obter_xml) with inconsistent verb forms and prefixes. The patterns are not predictable across the full set.
At 19 tools, the set is borderline heavy. Six tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) are platform-level utilities unrelated to the financial domain, inflating the count; the remaining 13 financial tools are well-scoped for a read-only reporting API.
The financial tools cover listing and detail retrieval for core entities (accounts, notes, people, chart of accounts) and generate/download reports. However, there are no create/update/delete operations, and no getter for accounts or other entities, limiting the surface to read-only reporting.