Edita uma conta a pagar existente (AlterarContaPagar). data é um JSON string que DEVE conter a chave do lançamento (codigo_lancamento_omie OU codigo_lancamento_integracao) + os campos a alterar (ex.: data_vencimento, valor_documento, codigo_categoria, observacao). Consulte antes com omie_get_payable.
| 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?
The description adds value beyond the annotations by detailing that the 'data' parameter is a JSON string with mandatory keys and examples of editable fields. The annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false), and the description aligns with that. No contradictions.
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 relatively concise with three sentences, each providing distinct information: action, parameter requirements, and usage advice. It avoids redundancy and is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, breaking the parameter explanation into a separate, more structured format could improve clarity.
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 lacks important details: it does not mention return values or success/failure indicators, nor does it cover the 'account' parameter. For an update operation with no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., the updated record or a status). The guidance to consult with 'omie_get_payable' hints at a workflow but leaves gaps.
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?
The description explains the 'data' parameter in detail, specifying required keys and example fields. However, it completely ignores the 'account' parameter, which is in the schema but not described. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should cover all parameters to compensate, but it fails to do so for one of the two.
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 that the tool edits an existing payable account ('Edita uma conta a pagar existente') and names the underlying API method ('AlterarContaPagar'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'omie_create_payable' and 'omie_get_payable' by focusing on the update action.
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 explicit guidance on how to use the tool: it requires a JSON string with the record key and fields to change. It also advises consulting 'omie_get_payable' first, implying a prerequisite and aiding proper usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives.
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.