APAGA (exclui em definitivo) uma conta a receber (ExcluirContaReceber). Informe codigo_lancamento_omie (id Omie) OU codigo_lancamento_integracao. Ação IRREVERSÍVEL — confirme com o usuário antes de chamar. Consulte antes com omie_get_receivable pra ter certeza do lançamento.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| codigo_lancamento_omie | No | ||
| codigo_lancamento_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?
Description claims the action is irreversible and destructive ('Ação IRREVERSÍVEL'), but annotations set destructiveHint to false, a direct contradiction. Flagged as 'Annotation Contradiction'.
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?
Two concise sentences: first states purpose and key parameters, second warns about irreversibility and gives usage guidance. No redundant information, perfectly front-loaded.
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 the simple delete operation with no output schema, the description covers action, parameters, irreversibility, and prerequisite consultation. Minor gap: no mention of return value or error handling, but adequate for the tool's complexity.
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?
Description explains that 'codigo_lancamento_omie' or 'codigo_lancamento_integracao' must be provided, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, the 'account' parameter is not described, leaving 1 of 3 parameters unexplained. Schema coverage is 0%, so description partially compensates.
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?
Description clearly states the tool deletes a receivable (conta a receber) using either Omie ID or integration code. It distinguishes from siblings by advising to consult omie_get_receivable first.
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?
Explicitly states the action is irreversible and requires user confirmation before calling. Advises to check with omie_get_receivable first, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.
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.