OpenMonetis MCP

Convidar pessoa para conectar

create_person_invitation

Creates a single-use invitation token that lets an external person access shared financial data; requires confirmation and the token must be kept secret.

Instructions

Cria um convite de conexão para uma pessoa externa. O retorno inclui um token de uso único que dá acesso aos dados compartilhados — trate como segredo e não registre em log. Exige confirm: true.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "personId": "<personId>"
    },
    "name": "create_person_invitation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No
`personId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.3Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses two substantive behaviors: the response carries a single-use `token` that grants access to shared data and must be treated as a secret, and the call requires `confirm: true`. That is real operational context an agent cannot get from the structured fields; it stops short of covering invitation expiry, whether the person is notified, or duplicate-invitation behavior.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the security-critical return detail, then the precondition. Every sentence carries information that is not duplicated in the name or schema.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it creates, the sensitive return value, and the confirmation precondition. Remaining gaps (expiry, notification, duplicate handling) are secondary but not trivial for an agent deciding whether retrying is safe given idempotentHint=false.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the `confirm` guard clearly ('Exige `confirm: true`'), which is the non-obvious parameter, and 'pessoa externa' implies `personId` targets the invitee. However, it never states the expected identifier format for `personId` or what happens if `confirm` is omitted or false.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Cria um convite de conexão') plus the scope ('para uma pessoa externa'), which cleanly separates it from cancel_person_invitation and list_person_invitations. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is by implication rather than by routing guidance.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied: this is the tool for inviting an external person, and the `confirm: true` requirement hints at a deliberate-confirmation flow. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of what to do when an invitation already exists, and no named alternative for inspecting existing invitations.

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

Deploy Server