Cria uma conta corrente (banco/caixa/cartão) na empresa (IncluirContaCorrente). data é um JSON string com os campos da doc oficial — comuns: cCodCCInt (sua chave de integração), tipo_conta_corrente ("CX" caixa, "CC" conta corrente, "CA" cartão, "AD" adiantamento), codigo_banco, descricao, nome_agencia, numero_conta_corrente. Doc: developer.omie.com.br (geral/contacorrente).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| account | 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?
The description indicates it's a creation operation, which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false). It adds context about the integration key and official documentation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or consequences of creating a duplicate account.
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?
The description is informative but slightly verbose, including Portuguese text and a link. It could be shortened without losing essential information, but most sentences provide value (operation, parameter hints, doc reference).
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 no output schema, the description should clarify return values or confirmation behavior. It provides a parameter hint but omits the 'account' parameter. The link to official docs partially compensates, but for a creation tool, more detail about success/failure responses would improve completeness.
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?
The description explains that 'data' is a JSON string containing specific fields (like cCodCCInt, tipo_conta_corrente) and links to official documentation, adding significant meaning beyond the bare schema. However, the optional 'account' parameter is not described, leaving its purpose unclear.
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 the tool creates a checking account (conta corrente) in the company, with specific types (bank/cash/card). It includes the exact API operation name and details about the primary parameter 'data', ensuring unambiguous identification of the action and resource.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., omie_update_checking_account, omie_list_checking_accounts). There is no mention of prerequisites, alternative tools for different scenarios, or situations where this tool should be avoided.
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.
The core Omie operations are distinct by resource and action, and the descriptions actively call out edge cases like omie_lancar vs omie_create_payable/receivable and transfer vs manual entries. A few pairs (list_payables/list_receivables/list_financial_movements/list_checking_account_entries) still overlap enough that an agent could pick the wrong one on first attempt.
The dominant pattern is clear and consistent: omie_verb_noun with create, get, list, update, delete, settle, cancel, and reconcile. The main deviations are the Portuguese helper omie_lancar and the unprefixed platform-level tools like authenticate, connect, marketplace, and toolkit_info, which break the otherwise regular naming scheme.
With 50 tools, this server is far beyond the 3-15 well-scoped range and sits at the extreme end of the rubric. Most of the tools are individually purposeful, but exposing checkings, payables, receivables, reconciliation, attachments, invoicing, batch upserts, and an entire marketplace platform in one server heavily taxes an agent's tool-selection space.
The core financial lifecycle is well covered: create, read, update, delete, settle, cancel, reconcile, unreconcile, transfer, attachment upload, and batch upsert. Minor gaps exist—invoices are list-only, customers have no delete operation, and there is no dedicated get-by-id for checking accounts—but these are workable for the main reconciliation workflows.