Lista contas a pagar (ListarContasPagar). Paginado. Use status (aberto/pago/cancelado/todos) pra situação — é mais confiável que o filtro cru da Omie, que devolve CANCELADO junto com PAGO/LIQUIDADO. Use filters (JSON) pro resto: filtrar_por_data_de/ate (DD/MM/AAAA), cliente, conta corrente etc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| filters | No | ||
| page_size | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / statusAdded value: +{
+ "enum": [
+ "aberto",
+ "pago",
+ "cancelado",
+ "todos"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds a specific behavioral quirk: the raw Omie filter erroneously includes CANCELADO alongside PAGO/LIQUIDADO, so `status` should be preferred. It also discloses pagination. It does not describe the response format, but no output schema is present and the safety profile is already established.
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 short and well-organized: the first sentence states the core purpose and pagination; the second gives the most important parameter guidance. It is dense but not bloated, though the caveat about Omie's raw filter is somewhat packed into the middle of the sentence flow.
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 an optional-parameter, read-only list tool, the description covers the main aspects an agent needs: what it lists, that it paginates, and how to filter reliably. The main gaps are the specific shapes of the checks `filters` JSON and the pagination parameters themselves, but given the low stakes of a list call and the sibling-tool context, it is sufficiently complete.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does add meaning for `status` (menu, values, reliability caveat) and `filters` (JSON with date-from/to, client, checking-account keys). However, `page`, `page_size`, and `account` are left undocumented, so the compensation is only partial.
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 the action and resource directly ('Lista contas a pagar' — lists accounts payable) and notes that it is paginated. This is immediately distinct from sibling tools such as omie_get_payable (single record), omie_create_payable (write), and omie_list_receivables (receivables), so no schema inspection is needed.
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 gives a concrete, actionable guideline: use `status` for the situation (aberto/pago/cancelado/todos) because Omie's raw filter is less reliable and mixes CANCELADO with PAGO/LIQUIDADO, and use `filters` (JSON) for everything else (date/customer/account). It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use this tool or name alternatives, but the context makes the selection 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.