Skip to main content
Glama

Omie

by io.github.mcp-dir

omie_settle_receivable

Dá baixa (liquida/recebe) uma conta a receber (LancarRecebimento). Aceita conciliar_documento: "S" pra já marcar a baixa como conciliada (aqui também existe omie_reconcile_receipt, que concilia depois). data é um JSON string com a chave do lançamento (codigo_lancamento, o id Omie — igual ao codigo_lancamento_omie do get — OU codigo_lancamento_integracao) + os dados da baixa: codigo_baixa_integracao (sua chave única da baixa, texto livre), valor, data (DD/MM/AAAA), codigo_conta_corrente (veja omie_list_checking_accounts) e opcional observacao. É o par pra conciliar com o Banco MCP. 🔑 Passe conciliar_documento: "S" pra já marcar a baixa como CONCILIADA — é a ÚNICA forma de conciliar um pagamento pela API (não existe ConciliarPagamento; a conciliação só acontece no momento da baixa). Pra conciliar um pagamento JÁ baixado: omie_cancel_payment e lance de novo com este campo.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
accountNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes well beyond the annotations by exposing non-obvious behavior: conciliation via this API only happens at settlement time, there is no separate ConciliarPagamento operation, and already-settled items need cancellation and re-submission. These are exactly the behavioral details that an agent cannot infer from the schema or annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The text is dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, but the conciliar_documento point is repeated about twice, and the guidance would be easier to scan if the reconciliation instructions were consolidated. Still, nearly every sentence adds meaningful information, so it is not padded fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter tool with a bare schema and no output schema, the description effectively provides everything an agent needs to construct a valid call: the JSON payload shape, date format, account reference, related tools, and failure/recovery guidance. It reads like a complete operational spec.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates strongly by explaining the JSON structure of data, including codigo_lancamento, codigo_lancamento_integracao, codigo_baixa_integracao, valor, date format, codigo_conta_corrente, and optional observacao. However, the second parameter account is never described or even mentioned, which prevents a perfect score.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description leads with a precise operation: 'Dá baixa (liquida/recebe) uma conta a receber (LancarRecebimento)', pairing a clear verb with the resource it acts on. It also differentiates from the sibling omie_reconcile_receipt by explaining the difference between settling with immediate reconciliation and reconciling later.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit guidance: pass conciliar_documento: 'S' for immediate reconciliation, use omie_reconcile_receipt when reconciliation should happen afterward, and if the item is already settled, cancel with omie_cancel_payment and relance. This clearly tells an agent when to use this tool versus the alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Omie toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources