Lista contas a receber (ListarContasReceber). Paginado. Use status (aberto/pago/cancelado/todos) pra situação — o filtro cru da Omie mistura CANCELADO com PAGO/LIQUIDADO. filters (JSON) aceita o resto: filtrar_por_data_de/ate, filtrar_por_emissao_de/ate, filtrar_cliente 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?
Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description reveals two concrete behavioral traits: the tool is paginated, and Omie's raw filter conflates status values, which is why the `status` parameter should be used. This is genuine context about how the API behaves and why the wrapper shaped that way.
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 front-loaded: the core action of the tool, the pagination hint, then the important status warning and filter examples. Every sentence has purpose, but the text is dense and not broken out into clear sections.
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?
The description covers pagination and the status vs filters decision, but most of the five parameters are five parameters with zero schema documentation. It leaves some params intentionally vague, and even the `filters` examples are 'etc.'. With no output schema, it offers minimal return/format context; an agent would need to infer outcome or rely on examples.
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 does for `status` (though the schema already has an enum) and for `filters` by showing JSON keys like filtrar_por_data_de/ate and filtrar_por_emissao_de/ate. However, `page`, `page_size`, and `account` are not semantically explained; the only hint for them is 'Paginado', which is thin for three optional 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 starts with 'Lista contas a receber (ListarContasReceber)', which clearly identifies the verb and resource: listing receivables. It also names the underlying Omie API endpoint. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like omie_list_payables, but the resource name is unambiguous enough for an agent to know this is the receivables list tool.
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 explicitly instructs the agent to use the `status` parameter for situation filtering, warning that Omie's raw filter mixes CANCELADO with PAGO/LIQUIDADO, and then to use `filters` for all other filtering. This is clear, actionable guidance for parameter usage. It does not, however, say when to choose this tool over sibling list tools.
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.