Cria um cartão de crédito MANUAL (automáticos vêm da conexão bancária). As faturas são geradas automaticamente após a criação.
Bulk support: accepts payment_account_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flag | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| billing_due_day | Yes | ||
| billing_cycle_day | Yes | ||
| payment_account_id | No | ||
| payment_account_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 a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful side-effect context: invoices are automatically generated after creation, and batch execution is supported through payment_account_ids. This goes beyond the structured hints, though it does not discuss permissions or failure behavior.
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 tight paragraphs, with the core purpose and the manual/automatic distinction front-loaded. The batch note is placed in a separate short sentence, minimizing reading cost.
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?
The description covers the main behavioral contract (manual cards, auto-generated invoices, batch support) but does not explain several parameters (flag, limit, payment_account_id) and gives no return/output expectations. With no output schema and zero schema descriptions, an agent may still have to guess when calling, so the definition is not fully complete.
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 of explaining parameters. It clarifies payment_account_ids for bulk execution, but leaves name, billing_due_day, billing_cycle_day, flag, limit, and payment_account_id without additional meaning. This is insufficient compensation for seven undocumented parameters.
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 a specific verb and resource, 'Cria um cartão de crédito MANUAL', and immediately distinguishes this from automatic cards sourced via bank connections. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and separates it from related credit-card operations.
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 explicitly states the manual-card use case and explains that automatic cards come from bank connections, implying this tool should not be used for those. It also notes bulk support via payment_account_ids, giving a clear condition for batched execution, though it does not name an alternative tool.
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.