Skip to main content
Glama

Criar transação já confirmada

confirm_new_transaction

Igual a create_transaction, mas SEM validar saldo suficiente — permite deixar a conta negativa (a validação de limite de cartão continua valendo). Use no lugar de create_transaction quando o usuário está registrando algo que sabidamente vai deixar o saldo negativo (ex: import de extrato retroativo) e isso é esperado, não um erro. Não suporta installments, scheduledDate, nature, ticker/exchange/shares — para parcelamento ou investimento use create_transaction.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateYesData ISO ou dd/mm/yyyy
typeYes
amountYesValor total da transação
cardIdNoObrigatório se accountId não for informado
goalIdNoMeta financeira vinculada — só tem efeito quando type é TRANSFER
isPaidNoEsta tool é para transações já efetivadas (padrão: true, aplica o efeito no saldo/fatura imediatamente). Para lançar como pendente sem afetar saldo, passe isPaid: false ou use create_transaction.
agentIdNoContato/agente (Agent) vinculado
equityIdNoInvestimento (Equity) vinculado
accountIdNoObrigatório se cardId não for informado
categoryIdNoId da Category do usuário
descriptionYesDescrição/título da transação
costCenterIdNoCentro de custo vinculado
destinationAccountIdNoObrigatório para TRANSFER
confirmNegativeBalanceNotrue confirma explicitamente que o saldo pode ficar negativo (mesmo efeito de isPaid: true nesta tool — a checagem de saldo já é pulada por padrão)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
cardNo
dateNo
tagsNo
typeNo
agentNo
amountNo
cardIdNo
goalIdNo
isPaidNo
natureNo
userIdNo
accountNo
agentIdNo
categoryNo
equityIdNo
paidDateNo
accountIdNo
createdAtNo
updatedAtNo
categoryIdNo
costCenterNo
externalIdNo
descriptionNo
costCenterIdNo
categoryModelNo
scheduledDateNo
totalInstallmentsNo
billReminderSentAtNo
currentInstallmentNo
destinationAccountNo
destinationAccountIdNo
recurringTransactionIdNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed7 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / agentId / description
      Added value: +"Contato/agente (Agent) vinculado"
    • addedInput schema / properties / amount / description
      Added value: +"Valor total da transação"
    • addedInput schema / properties / categoryId / description
      Added value: +"Id da Category do usuário"
    • addedInput schema / properties / costCenterId / description
      Added value: +"Centro de custo vinculado"
    • addedInput schema / properties / description / description
      Added value: +"Descrição/título da transação"
    • addedInput schema / properties / equityId / description
      Added value: +"Investimento (Equity) vinculado"
    • addedInput schema / properties / goalId / description
      Added value: +"Meta financeira vinculada — só tem efeito quando type é TRANSFER"
  2. Changed6 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / accountId / description
      Added value: +"Obrigatório se cardId não for informado"
    • addedInput schema / properties / agentId
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / cardId / description
      Added value: +"Obrigatório se accountId não for informado"
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmNegativeBalance / description
      Added value: +"true confirma explicitamente que o saldo pode ficar negativo (mesmo efeito de isPaid: true nesta tool — a checagem de saldo já é pulada por padrão)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / date / description
      Added value: +"Data ISO ou dd/mm/yyyy"
    • addedInput schema / properties / destinationAccountId / description
      Added value: +"Obrigatório para TRANSFER"
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: balance validation is skipped, negative balances are permitted, card limit validation still applies, and certain parameters are unsupported. It does not fully enumerate all side effects, but for a mutation tool this is solid transparency.

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 dense and well-structured: first the key differentiator, then the recommended use case, then exclusions. Every sentence adds value and there is no fluff. The most important behavioral caveat is front-loaded.

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 the high schema coverage, output schema, and available sibling create_transaction, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It explains when to use it, what behavioral difference it has, which fields it does not support, and what should be used instead. The reliance on create_transaction for baseline behavior is acceptable because that sibling is available in the 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 description coverage is 93%, and the schema already documents most parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explicitly listing unsupported parameters (installments, scheduledDate, nature, ticker/exchange/shares), which helps the agent avoid invalid inputs. It also reinforces the semantic relationship with balance behavior, though it does not deeply explain every parameter.

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 creates a transaction like create_transaction but without validating sufficient balance, expressly allowing negative balances. It distinguishes itself from its sibling by naming the exact behavioral difference and the unsupported fields. The purpose is unambiguous and tied to a specific verb and resource.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says when to use this tool instead of create_transaction: when the user registers something knowingly leaving the balance negative, such as a retroactive statement import. It also gives explicit exclusions—no installments, scheduledDate, nature, ticker/exchange/shares—and directs the user to create_transaction for those cases. This is strong, actionable routing guidance.

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

Try in Browser

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.