Cria OU atualiza VÁRIAS contas a receber numa chamada (UpsertContaReceberPorLote). Mesmas regras do omie_upsert_payables_batch: é UPSERT (mande os campos a preservar) e a chave de cada item é codigo_lancamento_integracao. data: {"lote": 1, "conta_receber_cadastro": [ {…} ]}.
| 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 are all false (readOnly, destructive, idempotent), so the description carries the burden. It discloses the upsert semantics ('é UPSERT (mande os campos a preservar)') and the integration key, which is critical behavioral info. It doesn't cover error handling or partial failures, but the given detail is valuable beyond annotations.
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?
Three sentences, no fluff. Purpose is front-loaded, and the cross-reference to a sibling tool avoids repeating shared rules. The JSON example is compact and directly actionable.
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 batch write operation with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description should cover more: the account parameter, the full payload shape beyond the top-level, required fields per item, and any response/error behavior. It also leaves the data-type mismatch unresolved. It's adequate for a basic call but not complete for robust agent use.
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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It explains the 'data' parameter with an example JSON structure and the key field, which is helpful. However, it never explains the 'account' parameter, and the schema says data is a string while the description shows an object—a mismatch that could confuse agents. Partial compensation for the coverage 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 states a specific verb (creates or updates) and resource (múltiplas contas a receber) in a batch, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling omie_upsert_payables_batch by referencing it. This makes the tool's scope 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 tells the agent this is a batch upsert and where to find the exact rules (omie_upsert_payables_batch). It also clarifies the UPSERT behavior and the key field. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over the single-create/update receivables tools, though the batch nature is implicit.
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.