Skip to main content
Glama
t4dhg

@t4dhg/mcp-holded

by t4dhg
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Holded payments

holded_payments

Manage payments and collections with full CRUD operations, filter by date, account, or document, and retrieve available payment methods.

Instructions

Payments (money out) and collections (money in). Actions: list (start_date, end_date, banking_account_id, document_id), get, create, update, delete, list_methods, get_method. Amounts are strings with a dot decimal separator.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoRecord id (24 hex characters)
dataNoPayload for create and update actions, following the Holded v2 request contract
limitNoPage size, 1 to 200 (default 50)
actionYes
cursorNoCursor from the previous page to continue listing
confirmNoRequired for gated actions. The first call without it sends nothing and explains what would happen.
end_dateNo
start_dateNo
document_idNo
banking_account_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.1

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and operational details, but it only mentions the amount format. It does not explain the consequences of create/update/delete, the confirm mechanism, or any authentication or rate-limit requirements.

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?

The description is two concise sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the resource and a key data format.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, 7 actions, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far too sparse. It omits pagination behavior, confirm semantics, data payload expectations, and per-action outcomes, leaving an agent under-informed.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description lists some list parameters but adds no semantic detail beyond their names. The schema already covers id, data, limit, cursor, and confirm, but the date, document, and banking parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a coverage gap unaddressed.

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?

The description clearly identifies the resource (payments and collections) and enumerates the available actions. It distinguishes the tool's scope from other modules, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like treasury or accounting.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The purpose is implied by the resource name, but no conditions or exclusions are given, leaving the choice to inference.

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

Install Server

Other Tools