Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-bd-readonly

mcp-bd-readonly

by noemartinezoptima
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

conciliar_remesas

Reconcile remittance totals by comparing issued versus credited amounts using the payment date to identify financial discrepancies.

Instructions

Total emitido vs acreditado de remesas (pago = fecha_pagado)

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": "conciliar_remesas"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful semantic rule (pago = fecha_pagado) but says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, what permissions it needs, or whether it aggregates/mutates anything. For a zero-annotation tool this is a substantial gap.

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 compact line with no filler, and the key concept (emitido vs acreditado) is front-loaded. Points are withheld only because the terse phrasing borders on cryptic rather than self-explanatory.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, the description is the only source of information about this tool, and it does not explain the returned shape, granularity, or scope. For a reconciliation/aggregation tool this leaves an agent under-informed.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The parenthetical rule about pago/fecha_pagado adds a small amount of semantics but there are no parameters to clarify.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names the resource (remesas) and the comparison it performs (total emitido vs acreditado), which is more specific than a tautology. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, so an agent cannot be fully certain whether this triggers a computation, returns a report, or mutates data. It is distinguishable from siblings like remesas_pendientes, but only by inference.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling (e.g. remesas_pendientes, cuadre_factura) it replaces. Usage is only implied by the name and the brief computation described.

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