Cria uma categoria de despesa ou receita (raiz ou subcategoria via parent_id).
Bulk support: accepts group_ids, parent_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| color | No | ||
| group_id | No | ||
| group_ids | No | ||
| parent_id | No | ||
| parent_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 signal readOnlyHint=false, so the write behavior is expected. The description adds context about expense vs revenue categories, root vs subcategory creation, and batch execution. However, it does not disclose side effects, validation, authentication requirements, or what happens on duplicate names.
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?
Two short, focused sentences. The core purpose is front-loaded and the bulk capability is added without repetition or filler.
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?
With seven parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no alternative tool guidance, the description is too thin for reliable invocation. An agent would still need to infer required parameter formats, valid kind values, and expected response behavior.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies kind via 'despesa ou receita' and parent_id via subcategory creation, and hints that plural ids support batching. But it leaves name, color, group_id, and the semantic meaning of group_ids/parent_ids largely unexplained.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Cria uma categoria de despesa ou receita' (creates an expense or revenue category). It also clarifies the hierarchy scope, 'raiz ou subcategoria via parent_id', which distinguishes it from category lookup, update, or delete tools.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools such as organizze_mass_manage_categories or organizze_update_category. The bulk-support sentence implies batch usage, but it does not tell an agent when to prefer this tool over alternatives.
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.
Most tools target distinct resource+action pairs, but the reporting/query side is crowded: get_balances, transactions_list_results, get_financial_summary, get_monthly_overview, and the category/tag reports overlap heavily. Long descriptions disambiguate bases and use cases, but an agent must read carefully to avoid picking the wrong report or list variant.
Organizze tools overwhelmingly follow a consistent organizze_<verb>_<noun> snake_case pattern with create_, list_, get_, update_, and delete_ prefixes. Deviations like transactions_list_results, the mass_* versus update_transactions_* bulk variants, and unprefixed platform tools keep it from being perfect.
68 tools is far beyond the practical agent surface and includes many near-variant list/report/mass tools plus six unrelated platform-level tools. Even though the finance domain is broad, this count creates an extreme mismatch for efficient tool selection.
The core finance lifecycle is well covered: accounts, cards, categories, budgets, transactions, invoices, transfers, and reports all have substantial CRUD or equivalent support. However, some referenced operations are missing entirely, such as delete_recurrence, clear_latest_imports, and remove_from_latest_imports, and transfers/recurrences lack full lifecycle coverage.