Lista os anexos de um documento (ListarAnexo). Paginado. Devolve listaAnexos com o nIdAnexo de cada anexo — use em omie_get_attachment (baixar) ou omie_delete_attachment.
Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| ids | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| tabela | Yes | ||
| account | No | ||
| filters | No | ||
| page_size | 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 cover readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing that the endpoint is paginated and supports bulk execution via ids, and that the response contains a listaAnexos array with nIdAnexo fields. This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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 compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers pagination, the return field, routing to dependent tools, and bulk support — every sentence earns its place.
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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to specify the document type via 'tabela', what filters/account mean, or how pagination parameters work. The routing to get/delete is helpful, but the agent lacks enough information to call the tool correctly in varied scenarios.
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 only clarifies the ids parameter ('Bulk support: accepts ids') and vaguely references pagination ('Paginado'). The required 'tabela' parameter and others such as account, filters, page, and page_size are left unexplained, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Lista os anexos de um documento' (lists attachments of a document), and names the underlying API operation 'ListarAnexo'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling attachment tools by directing the agent to use the returned nIdAnexo with omie_get_attachment or 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?
It explicitly tells the agent what to do with the result: use omie_get_attachment (download) or omie_delete_attachment. It also notes bulk support for ids, signaling when batched execution is possible. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the list operation is clearly distinct from the get/delete/upload attachment siblings.
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.