Skip to main content
Glama

C6 Bank MCP

by io.github.mcp-dir

openfinance_update_transaction_category

Corrects the category of one or more transactions (PATCH /transactions/:id). Pass items as an array of { transaction_id, category_id } — transaction_id comes from openfinance_list_transactions, category_id from openfinance_list_categories. This overrides Pluggy's automatic categorization AND teaches Pluggy: recategorizing a transaction automatically creates a Category Rule for this client (case-insensitive exact match on the transaction's data), so FUTURE similar transactions are categorized the same way — use this to fix miscategorized transactions and improve categorization accuracy going forward. Batch shape: returns { updated, results: [{ transaction_id, category, categoryId }], errors: [{ id, status, message }] } — per-item errors do not fail the whole batch.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added
  4. Removed
  5. Added
  6. Removed
  7. Added
  8. Removed
  9. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing that recategorizing automatically creates a Category Rule (teaching Pluggy), that per-item errors do not fail the batch, and the exact response shape. This provides deep behavioral insight essential for correct invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single paragraph but packs all necessary information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action. Slightly verbose in explaining side effects, but every sentence earns its place for the depth of context provided.

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 complexity (batch update with side effects and error handling), the description covers input structure, response format, and behavioral implications. No output schema exists, so the description adequately compensates. An agent has sufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, but the description explains the items parameter as an array of objects with transaction_id and category_id, and crucially tells the agent where to obtain these IDs (from list_transactions and list_categories). This adds essential semantic meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 corrects transaction categories via PATCH /transactions/:id, specifies input structure (items array with transaction_id and category_id), and distinguishes from sibling tools by explaining the source of IDs and the side effect of creating category rules, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says to 'use this to fix miscategorized transactions and improve categorization accuracy going forward,' providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the usage scenario is well-defined.

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

All C6 Bank MCP 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The openfinance_* tools mostly target distinct resources, but several close pairs require careful reading: list_transactions vs list_transactions_by_item, get_item_status vs provider_status, and list_accounts vs get_accounts_detail. The oversized marketplace tool also embeds sub-actions like report_bug and list_tools that overlap with standalone tools, making boundaries less crisp.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are predominantly lowercase snake_case with a strong openfinance_ prefix and clear verb_noun pairs such as list_accounts, get_account_balance, and update_transaction_category. A few platform-level tools break the pattern (marketplace, toolkit_info, authenticate, connect), but they are minor deviations and remain readable.

Tool Count3/5

At 25 tools, this is on the heavy end, and the server mixes a detailed Open Finance data adapter with platform-management tools like marketplace, authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info. The breadth is defensible for the domain, but the set feels overloaded and could reasonably be split or consolidated.

Completeness5/5

The Open Finance surface is unusually thorough: connection lifecycle, accounts, balances, transactions, cash-flow analysis, credit-card bills, investments, loans, categories, and provider status are all covered. List tools feed detail tools cleanly, and reconnect or force-sync paths exist for every staleness or authentication dead end.

Resources