delete_debtExclui uma dívida. Efeito colateral: recalcula analytics (patrimônio líquido) e insights do usuário.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Id da dívida (Debt) a excluir |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"Id da dívida (Debt) a excluir"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly discloses a side effect beyond the annotations: deleting a debt recalculates analytics (net worth) and user insights. This complements the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations with additional consequence information, though it does not detail the exact output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no filler: the primary action comes first, followed by the key side effect. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple single-parameter tool, an output schema, and annotations covering destructive/idempotent behavior, the description is nearly complete. The only small gap is the absence of explicit usage guidance, but the core purpose and side effects are fully covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single id parameter already documented as 'Id da dívida (Debt) a excluir'. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Exclui uma dívida', a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the operation as deleting a debt. This differentiates it from sibling delete_* and update_debt tools by naming the exact resource affected.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied by the verb 'Exclui' and the resource, so an agent can infer this is for removing debts. However, there is no explicit statement about when to prefer this over alternative tools such as update_debt or delete_transaction, or any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.