Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenMonetis MCP

OpenMonetis MCP

by Welington98
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Listar anexos

list_attachments
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a paginated list of a user's attachments for a given month, filtered by search text, file type (image or pdf), and person.

Instructions

Lista os anexos do usuário em um mês, com filtros por texto, tipo (image/pdf) e pessoa, paginado.

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": {
      "period": "<period>"
    },
    "name": "list_attachments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNo
kindNo
pageNo
periodYesMês de referência (YYYY-MM).
pageSizeNoItens por página: 20, 40 ou 80.
personIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.3

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are paginated and which filters exist, but says nothing about default page size behavior (only in schema), ordering of results, or what happens when no attachments match the period.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single dense sentence with no filler, and the resource plus time scope are front-loaded before the filter list. It could be tightened slightly by breaking filters and pagination into clearer clauses, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With six parameters, low schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the main knobs (period, text, kind, person, paging) adequately. It falls short on result shape expectations (e.g., whether an empty month returns an empty page vs. an error) and on disambiguating from the transaction-attachment sibling.

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 description coverage is only 33% (only period and pageSize are documented), so the description does real work by mapping 'texto' to q, 'tipo (image/pdf)' to kind, 'pessoa' to personId, and 'paginado' to page/pageSize. It still omits that personId is a UUID and that page is 1-based, leaving gaps the schema alone does not fill.

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 ('Lista') and resource ('anexos do usuário') plus the scoping dimension ('em um mês'), so an agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'list_transaction_attachments', which an agent could easily confuse with a generic user-attachment listing.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The closest sibling, list_transaction_attachments, is never acknowledged, so the agent must infer from names alone whether this tool is the general-purpose or the transaction-scoped listing.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools