OpenMonetis MCP

Pagar conta a pagar

pay_bill

Register payment of a recurring payable bill by specifying the source account, bill ID, period, payment date, and optional paid amount; confirmation is required to execute.

Instructions

Registra o pagamento de uma conta a pagar (lançamento recorrente) informando a conta de origem, a data e, opcionalmente, o valor pago. Exige confirm: true para executar.

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>",
      "billId": "<billId>",
      "accountId": "<accountId>",
      "paidAt": "<paidAt>"
    },
    "name": "pay_bill"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`amount`	No
`billId`	Yes	ID do item de conta a pagar retornado por list_bills.
`paidAt`	Yes
`period`	Yes
`confirm`	No
`accountId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.3Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false and idempotent=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds real value by disclosing the `confirm: true` gate, but says nothing about what paying does to the recurring entry (advance period, mark paid, allow partial payment) or that repeat calls are non-idempotent and may double-register.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action and its inputs front-loaded and the execution gate placed last where it is most likely to be acted on. No filler, though it earns no extra credit for economy alone.

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

Completeness2/5

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

This is a 6-parameter mutation with 17% schema coverage and no output schema, so the description should do heavy lifting. It omits any explanation of the required `period`, of what state change results from paying, and of behavior on repeat invocation despite idempotentHint=false — gaps an agent would notice before calling.

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 coverage is 17% (only billId is documented), so the description carries most of the burden and does reasonably: it maps 'conta de origem' to accountId, 'a data' to paidAt, and clarifies that amount is optional. However, the required `period` parameter is never explained and `confirm` is described only as a gate, not as to what happens if omitted.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Registra o pagamento de uma conta a pagar') and parenthetically disambiguates the resource as a recurring entry, which helps separate it from ordinary transaction tools. It stops short of pointing at the nearest sibling such as add_invoice_payment, so the agent still has to reason about which payment tool fits.

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 only implied by the resource description; there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative. The one concrete guideline given is procedural: execution requires `confirm: true`, which is genuinely useful for an agent.

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

Deploy Server