OpenMonetis MCP

Importar transações

import_transactions

Writes reviewed statement import rows into OpenMonetis, assigns person and category IDs per row, and requires confirmation using the preview source fingerprint.

Instructions

Grava no OpenMonetis as linhas já revisadas de uma importação de extrato. Use o sourceFingerprint e as linhas de preview_transaction_import, associando personId e categoryId a cada linha. 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": {
      "sourceFingerprint": "<sourceFingerprint>",
      "destinationType": "<destinationType>",
      "destinationId": "<destinationId>",
      "paymentMethod": "<paymentMethod>",
      "rows": "<rows>"
    },
    "name": "import_transactions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rows`	Yes
`confirm`	No
`destinationId`	Yes
`invoicePeriod`	No
`paymentMethod`	Yes
`destinationType`	Yes
`sourceFingerprint`	Yes	Fingerprint retornado por preview_transaction_import.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.3Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the confirm-gate requirement, which is real value beyond the annotations. However, it omits the consequences of a bulk write that is explicitly non-idempotent (re-running would likely duplicate rows), and says nothing about failure handling or what happens to rejected rows.

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 data source, then the required flag; no sentence is redundant.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a bulk mutation tool with no output schema and very low schema coverage, key operational facts are missing: row-limit bounds, invoicePeriod's purpose, destination/card consistency, and whether the call returns an import summary or batch id.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 14% (just sourceFingerprint), so the description has to compensate; it does explain the fingerprint's origin, that personId and categoryId are attached per row, and that confirm must be true. It leaves destinationType vs destinationId pairing, paymentMethod values, invoicePeriod, and the 1–1000 row limit undocumented.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb ('Grava'), resource ('as linhas já revisadas de uma importação de extrato') and target system, and it explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling preview step by emphasizing already-reviewed rows.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a clear workflow: use the sourceFingerprint and rows coming from preview_transaction_import, and requires confirm: true. It does not say when to prefer create_transaction for single entries or what to do if rows were not previewed, so it stops short of naming exclusions.

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

Deploy Server