Resumo dos limites de gastos do mês com alertas de budgets excedidos ou próximos do limite ("estou no controle?"). Padrão: mês atual.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | ||
| month | 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 cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the default current-month behavior and the fact the output includes alert states. It does not contradict 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?
One succinct sentence front-loads the core output (summary of limits with alerts) and ends with the default behavior. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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?
For a read-only summary with two optional parameters, the description covers purpose, output highlights, and default period. However, with no output schema and no parameter-level documentation, it leaves the exact return format and parameter constraints ambiguous.
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 schema has zero description coverage, so the description must carry the parameter semantics. It says the summary is for a month and defaults to the current month, implying year/month are optional selectors. It does not specify valid ranges or how the two params interact.
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 the tool returns a summary of monthly spending limits with alerts for budgets that are exceeded or close to the limit. The 'estou no controle?' phrase makes the user intent clear. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like organizze_list_budgets or organizze_get_financial_summary, but the focus on limits plus alerts is distinctive enough.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned. The 'estou no controle?' phrasing implies it is for checking budget control, and 'Padrão: mês atual' gives default-call guidance. However, an agent is not told when to choose this over organizze_list_budgets or organizze_get_financial_summary.
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.