Skip to main content
Glama

Omie

by io.github.mcp-dir

omie_lancar

Atalho: lança uma conta a PAGAR ou a RECEBER em UMA chamada, resolvendo os códigos por NOME no servidor (fornecedor/cliente, categoria e conta corrente). Substitui o fluxo de 4-5 chamadas (list_customers + list_categories + list_checking_accounts + create). Aceita nome OU código em cada campo; se um nome não bater ou for ambíguo, retorna erro com as opções ANTES de criar (não chuta). Datas aceitam AAAA-MM-DD ou DD/MM/AAAA. Use isto por padrão pra lançar; as tools omie_create_* continuam pra quem já tem os códigos.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tipoYes
valorYes
accountNo
categoriaYes
fornecedorYes
observacaoNo
vencimentoYes
data_previsaoNo
conta_correnteYes
numero_documentoNo
codigo_lancamento_integracaoNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses that it creates records (mutation), resolves names server-side, accepts name or code, and returns errors with options for ambiguous inputs. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint:false, destructiveHint:false). Could mention that it does not guess but returns errors.

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?

The description is concise (approximately 5 lines) and well-structured, starting with the core purpose and then detailing behavior and usage. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given 11 parameters (6 required) and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: shortcut nature, error handling, date formats, and when to use alternatives. Could mention the return value, but not critical for a creation tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that fields accept name or code, and dates accept two formats. It covers key parameters (fornecedor, categoria, conta_corrente) but not all 11 (e.g., observacao, numero_documento). Still adds significant value.

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 it is a shortcut to launch a payable or receivable in one call, naming the verb 'lança' and the resources 'conta a PAGAR ou a RECEBER'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like omie_create_payable/receivable by emphasizing it resolves codes by name.

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 advises 'Use isto por padrão pra lançar' and specifies when to use alternatives (omie_create_*) for those who already have codes. Also notes that ambiguous names return errors with options, guiding proper usage.

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
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources