Skip to main content
Glama

CDF Finance

by io.github.VessellTech

Comparativo do orçamento

budget_comparison
Read-only

Compara orçado (Budget.amount) vs gasto real de UM orçamento específico no seu período (mês, se MONTHLY; ano inteiro, se YEARLY), somando as transações do mesmo type/category no intervalo. Inclui daily: série diária acumulada do mês com projeção linear até o fim do mês (só para orçamentos MONTHLY do mês vigente — demais casos devolvem lista vazia). id é o id do Budget, não de uma categoria.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesId do orçamento (Budget)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dailyNo
spentNo
budgetNo
budgetedNo
remainingNo
percentageNo
transactionsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Added value: +"Id do orçamento (Budget)"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: the empty-list behavior for `daily`, the projection only for current-month MONTHLY budgets, and the transaction aggregation logic.

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?

Two focused sentences cover the core comparison, period logic, aggregation rule, the `daily` field behavior, and the `id` disambiguation. No wasted words, and the most important semantic caveat is included up front.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given a single parameter, a read-only annotation set, and an existing output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's behavior and edge cases. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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 100% with one parameter already described. The description adds meaningful semantic clarity by explicitly warning that `id` is the Budget id, not a category id, and by explaining how the budget period affects the aggregation.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: comparing budgeted amount versus actual spending for one specific budget over its period. It also explicitly distinguishes the `id` as a Budget id, not a category id, which helps disambiguate this comparison tool from category-level analytics.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool: for a specific budget and its configured period, with special handling for `daily` only in current-month MONTHLY budgets. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the scope is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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

All CDF Finance toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The tools are individually well-described and many cross-reference their closest neighbors, but the set contains several easily confused clusters: create_transaction/confirm_new_transaction, update_equity/add_equity_valuation, the invoice tools (current_invoice, next_invoice, list_pending_invoices, get_invoice), and the many analytics/projection tools. The descriptions help a careful reader, but with 81 tools an agent is likely to misselect among these overlapping surfaces.

Naming Consistency3/5

CRUD operations consistently use create_/list_/update_/delete_ plus a resource noun, and all names are snake_case. However, there is a large second group of noun-phrase analytics tools (cashflow_forecast, spending_projection, categories_insights, transport_routine) plus one-off verbs such as can_afford, pay_invoice, and validate_current_invoices, so the naming convention is mixed even though it remains readable.

Tool Count1/5

81 tools is far beyond the practical MCP tool surface and exceeds the rubric's 50+ extreme-mismatch threshold. Even if each tool maps to a real finance endpoint, the volume overwhelms an agent's context window and makes selection much harder.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the finance lifecycle extensively: accounts, cards, invoices, transactions, recurring rules, budgets, goals, debts, equities, categories, tags, cost centers, profile, projections, and insights all have working read/write paths. Minor gaps remain, such as no update/delete for tags and no direct update/delete for system-generated invoices, but agents can usually work around these.

Resources