CDF Finance

Criar transação recorrente

create_recurring_transaction

Cria uma regra recorrente e, de uma vez, já gera todas as transações concretas entre startDate e endDate (default endDate: 1 ano após startDate) — as datadas até hoje entram como pagas e afetam o saldo da conta imediatamente; as futuras entram como pendentes. Se cardId for informado, também cria/vincula as faturas de cartão correspondentes a cada ocorrência EXPENSE. Diferente de Transaction, RecurringTransaction não tem categoryId (FK) — category é só um rótulo texto livre.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	Yes	Tipo de cada ocorrência gerada
`amount`	Yes	Valor de cada ocorrência gerada
`cardId`	No	Cartão usado para ocorrências EXPENSE — gera fatura correspondente para cada uma
`nature`	No	Default: PERSONAL
`endDate`	No	Data ISO da última ocorrência a gerar. Default: 1 ano após startDate
`category`	No	Rótulo livre da categoria (texto, não é um categoryId/FK — RecurringTransaction não referencia a tabela Category)
`accountId`	No	Conta usada para débito/crédito de cada ocorrência
`frequency`	Yes	Ex: MONTHLY, WEEKLY, YEARLY
`startDate`	Yes	Data ISO da primeira ocorrência
`description`	Yes	Descrição de cada ocorrência gerada
`costCenterId`	No	Centro de custo aplicado a cada ocorrência gerada
`destinationAccountId`	No	Conta de destino, se as ocorrências forem transferências

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`success`	No
`invoiceErrors`	No
`invoicesCreated`	No
`recurringTransaction`	No
`transactionsGenerated`	No

Schema Changelog

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

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 1, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / costCenterId / description
```
Added value: +"Centro de custo aplicado a cada ocorrência gerada"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / description / description
```
Added value: +"Descrição de cada ocorrência gerada"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / type / description
```
Added value: +"Tipo de cada ocorrência gerada"
```

Changed10 schema fields changedSep 1, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / accountId / description

Added value: +"Conta usada para débito/crédito de cada ocorrência"

addedInput schema / properties / amount / description
```
Added value: +"Valor de cada ocorrência gerada"
```

addedInput schema / properties / cardId / description

Added value: +"Cartão usado para ocorrências EXPENSE — gera fatura correspondente para cada uma"

addedInput schema / properties / category

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Rótulo livre da categoria (texto, não é um categoryId/FK — RecurringTransaction não referencia a tabela Category)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / categoryId
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
addedInput schema / properties / costCenterId
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedInput schema / properties / destinationAccountId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Conta de destino, se as ocorrências forem transferências",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / endDate / description

Added value: +"Data ISO da última ocorrência a gerar. Default: 1 ano após startDate"

addedInput schema / properties / nature

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Default: PERSONAL",
+  "enum": [
+    "PERSONAL",
+    "PROFESSIONAL",
+    "MIXED",
+    "BUSINESS"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / startDate / description
```
Added value: +"Data ISO da primeira ocorrência"
```

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that past-dated occurrences become paid and immediately affect balance, future ones are pending, and card invoices are created for EXPENSE occurrences when cardId is supplied — exactly the non-obvious side effects an agent needs to know.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler: the core behavior, default endDate, payment status split, card invoice behavior, and the categoryId contrast are each presented once and all earn their place. Key information 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?

With an output schema available, return-value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers the non-obvious behaviors (immediate balance impact, pending future occurrences, card invoice creation, category free-text semantics) and leaves field mechanics to the fully described schema, making it complete for a 12-parameter create tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the temporal consequence of startDate/endDate (past occurrences paid, future pending) and reinforcing the cardId invoice behavior beyond the raw field descriptions.

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 states a specific action ('Cria uma regra recorrente e, de uma vez, já gera todas as transações concretas entre startDate e endDate') and explicitly distinguishes RecurringTransaction from Transaction by noting the absence of categoryId. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and separable from sibling create_transaction.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool and directly contrasts with Transaction, signaling that if a real category FK is needed, the one-off Transaction tool is the alternative. It does not explicitly enumerate all when-not scenarios, but the distinction is enough to route an agent 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 tools Inspect

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.

Criar transação recorrente

Input Schema

Output Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources