Skip to main content
Glama

Omie

by io.github.mcp-dir

omie_delete_checking_account_entry

APAGA/estorna um LANÇAMENTO de conta corrente (ExcluirLancCC) — movimentos da conta corrente como transferências, aplicações, resgates e tarifas, diferente de conta a pagar/receber (use omie_delete_payable/omie_delete_receivable pra títulos). Informe nCodLanc (id Omie do lançamento) OU cCodIntLanc (sua chave de integração). Ação IRREVERSÍVEL, confirme com o usuário antes de chamar. Doc: developer.omie.com.br (financas/contacorrentelancamentos).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountNo
nCodLancNo
cCodIntLancNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description states 'Ação IRREVERSÍVEL' (irreversible action), which implies destructive behavior. However, annotations declare destructiveHint: false. This is a clear contradiction, violating the rule that description should not contradict structured metadata. Despite adding useful context, the contradiction forces a score of 1.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise at four sentences, front-loading the purpose and key distinction from siblings. Each sentence adds essential information (what it does, when to use, parameters, warning, documentation reference) without redundancy.

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?

Given the high-risk nature (irreversible action) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage boundaries, parameter choice, and a critical safety warning. It references documentation for more details. Missing a brief note on expected outcome (e.g., success/failure behavior), but overall sufficient for an informed call.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the two identifier parameters (nCodLanc and cCodIntLanc) well, including their meaning and usage (provide one or the other). However, the 'account' parameter is not mentioned, leaving its purpose unclear. Overall, adds significant value for 2 out of 3 parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool deletes/stornos a checking account entry, gives examples of movement types, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools omie_delete_payable and omie_delete_receivable. The verb 'APAGA/estorna' and resource 'LANÇAMENTO de conta corrente' are specific and unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for checking account movements like transfers, applications, withdrawals, fees) and when not to (for payable/receivable titles, directing to alternatives). It also warns that the action is irreversible and advises user confirmation before calling.

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

All Omie 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources