Exclui VÁRIAS transações por lista de ids/uuids (máx. 500). Os ids DEVEM vir de uma busca recente (list/search/find_duplicates/get_transaction) — nunca invente. Automáticas são ignoradas; recorrentes excluem só a ocorrência atual. Destrutivo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transactions | 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 usefully discloses destructive behavior, auto-transaction handling, and recurring-transaction behavior. However, it explicitly says 'Destrutivo' while annotations set destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction, which per the rubric forces 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 Portuguese sentences with no filler: the action and limit come first, followed by the ID-provenance warning and behavioral notes. Every 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?
For a destructive bulk operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: batch limit, ID provenance, behavior for automatic and recurring transactions, and destructiveness. It does not mention how to split batches over 500 or explicitly route single deletions to organizze_delete_transaction, but those are minor omissions.
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 compensate. It does explain that the parameter is a list of ids/uuids with a 500-item limit and warns that IDs must come from prior searches. But it doesn't clarify whether each array item needs transaction_id, transaction_uid, or either one, or how the two properties relate. This leaves a significant semantic gap.
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 starts with 'Exclui VÁRIAS transações por lista de ids/uuids,' clearly identifying a bulk delete operation on transactions. This distinguishes it from the singular delete_transaction and from mass create/update siblings. The 500-item cap and ID-source requirement further sharpen the purpose.
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?
Gives explicit usage constraints: IDs must come from a recent list/search/find_duplicates/get_transaction and must never be invented. It also states behavioral limits (auto igored, recurring delete only current occurrence). However, it doesn't explicitly point to the single-delete alternative or say when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of a 5.
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.