Edita um lançamento de conta corrente (AlterarLancCC). data é um JSON string que DEVE conter a chave (nCodLanc OU cCodIntLanc) + os blocos a alterar (cabecalho/detalhes). Consulte antes com omie_get_checking_account_entry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| account | 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 already indicate readOnlyHint=false (modifies data) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the behavioral trait that it updates specific blocks ('os blocos a alterar'), implying a targeted partial update. It also implies a prerequisite of fetching the existing entry. But it does not disclose potential failure modes, idempotency (though annotations say false), or whether the operation is reversible. Given annotations exist, this is adequate but not rich.
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 two sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and the critical input requirement is stated right after. It's appropriately sized for a tool with moderate complexity, though it could have used the second sentence to also clarify the 'account' parameter without adding much length.
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 two parameters, the description covers the main 'data' parameter thoroughly and the prerequisite consultation. However, it omits the 'account' parameter entirely, which could affect the request if used. It also lacks any comment on return values or error handling, though output schema absence makes that less critical. The gaps around 'account' and potential error conditions make it incomplete enough to not be a 4.
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% for the 'data' parameter, so the description carries the burden. It explains that 'data' is a JSON string that must contain a key (nCodLanc or cCodIntLanc) and the blocks to change, which is meaningfully beyond mere type. However, the optional 'account' parameter is completely unmentioned in the description, leaving the agent without explanation for when to use it (e.g., filtering by account). This gap prevents a 5.
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 states the verb 'Edita' (edits) and the resource 'lançamento de conta corrente' (checking account entry), with the API operation name in parentheses. This distinguishes it from other entry tools (create/delete/get) because the verb and resource are explicit. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the meaning is unambiguous.
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 gives explicit guidance: 'Consulte antes com omie_get_checking_account_entry' (consult first with the get tool), which tells the agent when to use this tool relative to fetching data. It also specifies the required input structure (must contain nCodLanc or cCodIntLanc). However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool (e.g., for creating or deleting entries), leaving some inference to the agent, so not a 5.
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.