Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Omie

by io.github.mcp-dir
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

omie_get_receivable

Read-onlyIdempotent

Detalha uma conta a receber (ConsultarContaReceber). Informe codigo_lancamento_omie (id Omie) OU codigo_lancamento_integracao. Use antes de editar (omie_update_receivable).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "omie_get_receivable"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountNo
codigo_lancamento_omieNo
codigo_lancamento_integracaoNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that the tool details a receivable and is a pre-edit step, but does not elaborate on return format or other behaviors. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with good annotations, the description covers the main purpose and parameter usage. Missing explanation for the 'account' parameter, but overall sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, so description carries burden. It explains that 'codigo_lancamento_omie' is the Omie ID and 'codigo_lancamento_integracao' is an alternative, and that either can be used. The 'account' parameter is not mentioned, leaving a minor gap.

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 'Detalha uma conta a receber' (details an account receivable), specifies the API function 'ConsultarContaReceber', and distinguishes from sibling 'omie_update_receivable' by noting 'Use antes de editar'.

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?

Explicitly instructs to provide either 'codigo_lancamento_omie' or 'codigo_lancamento_integracao', and indicates to use before editing. This provides clear when-to-use and alternative options.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources