Lista lançamentos de conta corrente (ListarLancCC). Paginado. filters (JSON) aceita cOrigem, dDtIncDe/dDtIncAte, dDtAltDe/dDtAltAte, dtPagInicial/dtPagFinal (DD/MM/AAAA). Transferências aparecem com origem TRAP (saída) e TRAR (entrada).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not required to restate those. It adds valuable behavioral context: pagination behavior, specific filter fields with date format (DD/MM/AAAA), and the origin codes for transfers (TRAP/TRAR). This goes beyond the schema and provides useful operational details without contradicting 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 concise – a single sentence plus a note. It front-loads the primary purpose and then adds filter and transfer details. The structure is efficient, with no filler words. It loses a point because the filter fields are listed compactly without capitalization or escaping, which slightly reduces readability, but overall it's well-organized.
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?
With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description must carry more weight. It explains the purpose, filters, and transfer origins, but it omits the shape of the response, how pagination works (e.g., page size limits), the meaning of 'account' (likely the account ID), and the exact format of the filters JSON (e.g., exact key names and how to pass multiple filters). While the tool is relatively simple, the lack of parameter documentation for three of four parameters and lack of return format make it incomplete for an agent to call correctly without guessing.
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 coverage is 0% – none of the parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description only partially compensates: it details the 'filters' parameter (listing accepted fields and date format) but does not explain 'page', 'account', or 'page_size'. Even 'filters' is not fully specified (e.g., whether all fields are optional or how to combine them). For a tool with zero schema coverage, the description must pay more attention to parameter documentation; it fails to do so for the majority of parameters.
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 it lists checking account entries ('Lista lançamentos de conta corrente') and specifies the API method (ListarLancCC). It distinguishes from sibling tools like omie_list_accounts and omie_list_checking_accounts by focusing on entries rather than accounts. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the resource and action are unambiguous.
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 implies when to use this tool (to list checking account entries) and provides filter guidance, but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools. The pagination and filter details give context, but there's no direct comparison with other sibling list tools. Usage is inferred rather than explicitly guided.
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.