Skip to main content
Glama

CDF Finance

by io.github.VessellTech

Próximas transações

upcoming_transactions
Read-only

Lista transações INCOME/EXPENSE (não TRANSFER) dos próximos dias com resumo agregado de upcoming (dentro do range) e overdue (vencidas e ainda não pagas, sempre incluídas independente do range). status filtra por isPaid: default 'pending' (só não pagas) — use 'all' pra ver pagas e pendentes juntas no período.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoData ISO fim, default +30 dias
fromNoData ISO início, default hoje
statusNoDefault: pending (só transações não pagas)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rangeNo
summaryNo
generatedAtNo
transactionsNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / status / description
      Added value: +"Default: pending (só transações não pagas)"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavior: only INCOME/EXPENSE are included, overdue transactions are always included regardless of the date range, and status maps to isPaid with a meaningful default. This is valuable behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 compact and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose before adding filter and summary nuance. Every clause carries distinct information without redundancy or filler.

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 existence of an output schema, optional parameters, and a read-only annotation, the description covers the operational key points: scope, filters, defaults, and the special overdue behavior. An agent has enough context to invoke this tool appropriately.

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, but the description adds real semantics for the status parameter by explaining the default, what 'all' does, and how paid vs pending relates to isPaid. It also clarifies that from/to controls only future range while overdue extends beyond it.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: lists INCOME/EXPENSE transactions for upcoming days, explicitly excluding TRANSFER. It also defines the two summary buckets (upcoming and overdue), which clearly distinguishes this tool from generic listing siblings like list_transactions.

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?

The description explains the default status filter and mentions using 'all' to include paid and pending transactions, which gives practical usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over list_transactions or any other alternative, leaving sibling differentiation mostly implicit.

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