Skip to main content
Glama

iClips

by io.github.mcp-dir

iclips_financial_invoices_list

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: list]

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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent; the description adds meaningful constraints: 366-day maximum range, filtering by issue date, pagination defaults, batched get with per-id errors, and the exact fiscal fields returned. This goes well beyond the 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 structured and information-dense: purpose, actions, then return data. The only notable waste is the 'get' action detail that duplicates the sibling tool and the cryptic '[Flattened action: list]' note.

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 no output schema and no parameter docs, this description gives enough to call it correctly: date semantics, pagination, status filtering, batch behavior, and returned fields. It falls short on the undocumented account parameter and on clarifying whether invoice_ids/get is actually callable in this flattened list tool.

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 by explaining most parameters: from/to format and requirement, limit/offset defaults, status filter, and invoice_ids for batch get. It does not explain what 'account' means, and it introduces a requiredness expectation for from/to that the schema does not encode.

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 the tool reads NFS-e invoices and gives a specific list behavior with date-range and pagination details. However, it also documents a 'get' action even though a dedicated sibling iclips_financial_invoices_get exists, and the '[Flattened action: list]' note muddies exactly which action is active.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It explains when to use the list action (from/to, status, pagination) and describes the get action, so the internal usage pattern is inferable. It never explicitly says to prefer iclips_financial_invoices_get for invoice details and gives no when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the choice between this tool and its sibling partly ambiguous.

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