Devolve o LINK DE DOWNLOAD de um anexo (ObterAnexo) — cLinkDownload, válido até dDtExpiracao. Identifique o anexo 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the returned link expires at dDtExpiracao and bulk execution via ids is supported.
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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core behavior and return value, and the second adds bulk support. Every sentence earns its place with no filler 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 covers the return value, expiration, identification options, and bulk support, which is good for a simple read operation. However, with 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the unexplained required parameters and the ambiguity around 'id' vs 'id_anexo' leave the description incomplete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains id_anexo, codigo_integracao, file_name, and ids, but it leaves the required 'tabela' and 'id' parameters unexplained and does not clarify the relationship between 'id' and 'id_anexo'. This is a meaningful gap given the lack of schema descriptions.
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's specific function: returning a download link for an attachment, including the exact response fields (cLinkDownload, dDtExpiracao). It also names three identification methods, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like omie_list_attachments, omie_upload_attachment, and omie_delete_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?
The description provides clear context by telling the agent how to identify the attachment (by id_anexo, codigo_integracao, or file_name) and explicitly points to omie_list_attachments as the way to find the id. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus upload/delete siblings, but the context is sufficient for correct selection.
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.