Desfaz a conciliação de uma baixa de recebimento (DesconciliarRecebimento). 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 declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates but is not destructive. The description adds no further behavior details: no mention of reversibility, effect on related records, permission requirements, or response format. With the full burden on the description (since annotations are generic), the description offers minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.
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 a single sentence that leads with the purpose and then immediately provides the essential key requirement. Every word earns its place; there's no fluff or redundant information.
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 mutating tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and zero param documentation, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the 'account' param, describe side effects, or mention error conditions or data integrity implications. The alternative-key note is helpful but far from sufficient for an agent to safely invoke the operation in all cases.
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% (no param descriptions). The description compensates partially by stating 'Chave: codigo_baixa OU codigo_baixa_integracao', clarifying that one of these two keys must be provided as an alternative. However, it does not explain the 'account' parameter at all, and it doesn't complete the picture (e.g., format expectations, which key to prefer). It adds some value beyond the bare schema but leaves 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 states a specific verb ('Desfaz a conciliação' = undoes reconciliation) and a clear resource ('baixa de recebimento' = receipt write-off), and gives the API operation name (DesconciliarRecebimento). It clearly implies the inverse of omie_reconcile_receipt among siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling. This is a clear, distinguishable 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?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., that the receipt must already be reconciled), and no conditions that should prevent usage. The only hint is the key requirement, which is more about parameter usage than when to invoke the tool.
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.