Detalha um lançamento de conta corrente (ConsultaLancCC). Informe nCodLanc (id Omie) OU cCodIntLanc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| nCodLanc | No | ||
| cCodIntLanc | 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the identifier constraint ('Informe nCodLanc OU cCodIntLanc') but does not elaborate on behaviors like handling of both/neither identifiers or return format. Given annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds modest value without 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?
The description is two short sentences with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the critical parameter instruction follows immediately. It efficiently conveys purpose and essential usage in minimal words.
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?
For a simple getter with no output schema, the description covers the main identifiers but omits the 'account' parameter entirely. It also does not specify behavior when both identifiers are supplied or what happens if neither is provided. While the tool is straightforward, the missing account parameter and lack of edge-case guidance leave gaps for an agent.
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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description must clarify parameters. It explains nCodLanc as the Omie id and cCodIntLanc as an internal code, and specifies that one must be provided. However, the 'account' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its semantics unclear. It compensates for two of three parameters, which is significant.
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 function: 'Detalha um lançamento de conta corrente' (details a checking account entry) and identifies the specific API method. It distinguishes itself from siblings like omie_get_checking_account_balance (balance) and omie_list_checking_account_entries (list) by indicating it retrieves a single detailed entry. The verb 'detalha' and resource are explicit.
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 parameter requirements: must inform nCodLanc OR cCodIntLanc. This guides the agent on what to supply. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the context implies this tool is for retrieving a specific entry versus listing. No exclusions are stated, but the 'OU' (or) clarifies an essential usage rule.
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.