Lista centros de custo da empresa (id, name). Com cost_center_id: retorna um único centro de custo.
Use para classificar despesas em relatórios (o id casa com o costCenter das transações).
Opcional: accounts — agrupa por conta em accounts[].
Bulk support: accepts cost_center_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accounts | No | ||
| cost_center_id | No | ||
| cost_center_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing bulk execution and grouping behaviors, which are beyond the annotations.
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 very concise: three sentences with clear structure. Front-loaded with main purpose, then details. No wasted words.
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 no output schema and three parameters with zero coverage, the description provides sufficient context for usage. However, it could mention response format or pagination, but it's not critical.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains cost_center_id, accounts, and cost_center_ids but lacks type details or constraints. Barely adequate.
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 clearly states the tool lists cost centers (id, name) and can return a single one with cost_center_id. It also explains its use for classifying expenses, distinguishing it from siblings like contasimples_category.
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?
It explains when to use (classify expenses) and mentions optional grouping (accounts) and bulk support (cost_center_ids). Though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the context is clear.
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.
Almost all tools have clear purposes, especially with the contasimples_ prefix. Some overlap between statement and summary, but descriptions differentiate well. The general tools (marketplace, report_bug, etc.) are completely different from the financial ones, which reduces potential confusion.
The domain tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., contasimples_card_write_block). However, the inclusion of general tools like authenticate, connect, marketplace breaks the pattern. This inconsistency lowers the score.
With 24 tools covering authentication, financial operations, and platform utilities, the number is reasonable for a moderately complex MCP server. It doesn't feel excessive or too thin.
The toolset covers key financial operations (balance, bills, cards, statements, summary) and some mutations (block/unblock, create invite, delete user). However, missing CRUD for several entities (e.g., no update user, no create card, no delete invite) leaves gaps. The presence of platform utilities adds breadth but not depth.