Marca a baixa de um recebimento como CONCILIADA (ConciliarRecebimento). Use ao casar o extrato do banco com o título na Omie. Chave: codigo_baixa OU codigo_baixa_integracao.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| codigo_baixa | No | ||
| codigo_baixa_integracao | 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 are all false, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions the action and the key parameter, but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, error behavior, or prerequisites (e.g., receipt must exist). The description adds little beyond what the name conveys.
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 (two sentences) and front-loads the action and key information. It lacks explanation of the account parameter, but the structure is efficient and no filler is present.
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 mutation tool with no output schema and empty annotations, this description is incomplete. It fails to explain the account parameter, prerequisites, or expected outcomes (e.g., success/failure signals). An agent would need to guess at required context.
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 explain the parameters. It mentions codigo_baixa and codigo_baixa_integracao as alternative keys, but entirely omits the 'account' parameter and provides no type/format details. This is a significant gap.
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 identifies the action: marking a receipt as CONCILIADA (ConciliarRecebimento). It also includes the specific use context (matching bank statement with Omie title) and differentiates from siblings like omie_unreconcile_receipt by the explicit reconcile-purpose.
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 states explicitly when to use the tool: 'Use ao casar o extrato do banco com o título na Omie.' This provides clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it, but the primary use case is well-defined.
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.