Remove um anexo de um documento (ExcluirAnexo). IRREVERSÍVEL. Identifique por id_anexo (veja omie_list_attachments), codigo_integracao ou file_name.
Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| ids | No | ||
| tabela | Yes | ||
| account | No | ||
| id_anexo | No | ||
| file_name | No | ||
| codigo_integracao | 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 states 'IRREVERSÍVEL' (irreversible), but the annotation destructiveHint is false, creating a direct contradiction. Additionally, no other side effects or permissions are mentioned. This is a significant transparency failure.
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 concise, using two sentences to convey the action, identifiers, irreversibility, and bulk support. No unnecessary information or repetition.
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?
The description does not mention the required parameters 'tabela' and 'id' from the schema, nor does it clarify the role of 'account'. Since the schema lists these as required, the description is incomplete and could mislead an agent into thinking only the optional identifiers are needed.
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 the purpose of id_anexo, codigo_integracao, and file_name as identifiers, and hints at 'ids' for bulk. However, it does not explain 'tabela' or 'account', which are part of the schema and required for the operation.
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 removes an attachment from a document, identifies it by id_anexo, codigo_integracao, or file_name, and mentions bulk support. This differentiates it from sibling tools like omie_upload_attachment and omie_get_attachment.
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 provides guidance on how to specify the attachment (via id_anexo, codigo_integracao, or file_name) and notes bulk execution with 'ids'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with list or get operations, though the deletion intent is clear.
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.