Skip to main content
Glama
OpenMonetis MCP

OpenMonetis MCP

by Welington98

Conversas com a IA

list_ai_chats
Read-onlyIdempotent

List financial assistant conversations with their title, period, provider, and model to review chat history and track which AI models were used.

Instructions

Lista as conversas com o assistente financeiro (título, período, provedor e modelo).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_ai_chats"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.3

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds that each entry carries title, period, provider and model, which is useful context about the payload. It does not disclose ordering, pagination, or whether all chats or only recent ones are returned.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and then parcels out the returned fields in a parenthetical. No filler, no restatement of the title, nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool whose annotations already cover safety, this is close to sufficient, and the field enumeration compensates for the missing output schema. The remaining gap is operational: nothing about pagination, result caps, or sort order.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the schema burden is nil. The parenthetical field list describes the response rather than inputs, which is still useful orientation given no output schema exists.

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?

A specific verb and resource are stated ("Lista as conversas com o assistente financeiro"), plus the fields surfaced (título, período, provedor, modelo). That is enough to distinguish it from mutation siblings like delete_ai_chat or create_ai_diagnosis, though the single-chat sibling get_ai_chat is never contrasted, so the boundary is only implied.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description says what is listed but never when to prefer it over get_ai_chat, list_ai_diagnoses, or any filtering limitation. There are no stated prerequisites, no exclusions, and no indication of whether the list is scoped to a user, account, or is complete.

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