Exclui um cartão de crédito. ATENÇÃO: todas as transações e faturas do cartão são excluídas. Cartões automáticos não podem ser excluídos (desconecte pelo menu de conexões).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| credit_card | Yes |
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?
The description warns that all transactions and invoices are deleted, which is clearly destructive behavior, but the annotations set destructiveHint to false. This is an annotation contradiction, so per rubric this dimension scores 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?
Two sentences, no fluff: first states the action, second gives the critical warning and exception. The information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.
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 operation, cascade side effects, and the automatic-card exception, but it omits how to identify the target card and what the return/response behavior is. With no output schema and no parameter documentation, an agent still cannot reliably call this tool correctly.
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?
The only parameter 'credit_card' has no schema description and the description never explains what value it expects (ID, name, slug) or how to format it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description was required to compensate and did not.
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 action and resource: 'Exclui um cartão de crédito' (deletes a credit card). This clearly distinguishes from sibling update/list/get tools for credit cards, and there is no other sibling that deletes a credit card specifically.
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 provides an explicit exclusion and alternative action: automatic cards cannot be deleted and should be disconnected via the connections menu. It doesn't spell out general when-to-use vs alternatives like update_credit_card, but the deletion intent 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.
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.