Detalha um cliente/fornecedor (ConsultarCliente). Informe codigo_cliente_omie (id Omie) OU codigo_cliente_integracao (sua chave de integração).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| codigo_cliente_omie | No | ||
| codigo_cliente_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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety. Description adds minor context (function name) but lacks details on error behavior or what happens when parameters are combined.
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?
Single, well-structured sentence in Portuguese that conveys essential information without redundancy. Front-loaded purpose before parameter instructions.
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?
Covers identification parameters and purpose, but fails to explain the 'account' parameter or describe the output format (no output schema). For a read tool, output expectations are important but omitted.
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 description must compensate. It explains two key parameters (codigo_cliente_omie and codigo_cliente_integracao) as alternatives, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it omits the 'account' parameter entirely.
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 it details a customer/supplier, mentions the API function 'ConsultarCliente', and specifies the two alternative identifiers. It distinguishes from sibling tools like omie_create_customer and omie_list_customers.
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?
Provides explicit instruction to use either codigo_cliente_omie or codigo_cliente_integracao, guiding when to use this tool for retrieving a single customer detail. Doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the constraint 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.