Exclui uma categoria; suas transações vão para outra categoria (substitute_category ou padrão). Categorias padrão NÃO podem ser excluídas. Ao excluir uma raiz, as subcategorias somem.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | Yes | ||
| substitute_category | 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?
Annotation Contradiction: destructiveHint is false even though the description says the tool deletes a category and that subcategories 'somem' (disappear). The description adds useful side effects like transaction reassignment and root-cascade behavior, but the direct contradiction with the annotation makes the behavioral signal unreliable, requiring a score of 1.
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?
Three short sentences with no filler: the main action, the destination of transactions, and two key constraints. Every sentence contributes essential information and the most important fact is front-loaded.
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 deletion semantics, the default-category restriction, and the root-cascade side effect. However, with no output schema and an annotation set that contradicts the destructiveness of the operation, it leaves ambiguity about parameter format and return behavior, so it is only partially 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 must carry the burden of explaining the two string parameters. It explains that substitute_category receives the transactions or that a default category is used, but it leaves 'category' under-specified, such as whether it expects an ID or name, and does not fully compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 operation: 'Exclui uma categoria' (deletes a category), identifying both the verb and the resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like organizze_mass_manage_categories or organizze_update_category, so it stops short of a top score.
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?
The description provides concrete usage constraints: default categories cannot be deleted, and deleting a root category causes subcategories to disappear. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when to use a bulk management sibling, but the constraints give clear contextual guidance for when deletion is or is not appropriate.
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.