Skip to main content
Glama

iClips

by io.github.mcp-dir

iclips_financial_invoices_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lê as notas fiscais de serviço (NFS-e) emitidas pela agência no iClips. Ações:

  • list: exige from e to (AAAA-MM-DD, no máximo 366 dias, filtrando pela data de emissão). Filtro opcional por status. Pagine com limit (padrão 50, máximo 200) e offset.

  • get: detalhe completo de uma ou mais notas por invoice_ids (em lote, com erro reportado por id). Devolve valor bruto e líquido, base de cálculo, alíquota e valor do ISS, retenções de PIS, COFINS, INSS, IR e CSLL, a discriminação do serviço, os dados do tomador e do emitente, os números do RPS e o motivo do cancelamento quando o status é cancelled.

[Flattened action: get]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNo
fromNo
limitNo
offsetNo
statusNo
accountNo
invoice_idsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds significant behavior: max 366-day range, pagination defaults, batch get with per-id error reporting, and the status/motivo de cancelamento handling. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, uses compact action labels, and packs useful constraints into a short block. The trailing '[Flattened action: get]' note adds minor noise but does not undermine readability.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a tool with seven parameters and no output schema, it describes the query modes, parameter constraints, and returned invoice fields in good detail. The main omissions are the meaning of the account parameter and explicit guidance about choosing between this tool and iclips_financial_invoices_list.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for most parameters: from/to dates and maximum range, status filtering, limit/offset pagination, and invoice_ids batch semantics. The account parameter is not explained, preventing a 5.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lê as notas fiscais de serviço (NFS-e) emitidas pela agência no iClips'. It further details the list and get actions, making the tool's role clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling iclips_financial_invoices_list, so it falls just short of full sibling distinction.

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 gives concrete usage context: list requires from and to, with date format and limits, while get is for invoice_ids and returns full details. It lacks explicit 'when not to use this tool' or alternative tool names, but the guidance is clear and non-misleading.

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

All iClips 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

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools are near-duplicates, such as iclips_financial_entries_get/list, iclips_pieces_get/list, iclips_pieces_write_create/update/checklist, and iclips_workflow_templates_get/list, all sharing essentially the same description. authenticate and connect also overlap on session/connection status, so an agent must rely on brittle naming conventions rather than clear semantic boundaries.

Naming Consistency2/5

The iClips tools mostly follow iclips_<resource>_<action>, but the server mixes noun-only names like iclips_financial_accounts and marketplace, camelCase platform names like toolkit_info and show_version, and artificial get/list flattened duplicates. The pattern is only predictable within a subset of the tool list, not across the entire server.

Tool Count2/5

At 30 tools, the set is over-inflated for its actual scope: most are flattened get/list or write-action variants of roughly a dozen underlying iClips operations, plus six unrelated platform utilities. The domain could be cleanly served in about half this many tools without losing functionality.

Completeness2/5

Jobs and pieces have reasonable CRUD coverage, but there is no client/group or destination master lookup even though clientId is required to create a job and destination_id filters financial entries. Job pieces and tasks also lack delete operations, and financial categories are not enumerable, leaving noticeable dead ends for common workflows.

Resources