Desfaz um "Informar Pagamento" em cartão AUTOMÁTICO (marcador aguardando Open Finance). Não remove pagamentos reais já confirmados. invoice_date_or_id é obrigatório.
Bulk support: accepts invoice_date_or_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| credit_card | Yes | ||
| invoice_date_or_id | Yes | ||
| invoice_date_or_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 only say readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructible=false. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it affects only the pending Open Finance marker, it reverses an informed payment, and it does not delete confirmed real payments. This goes beyond the annotation hints without contradicting them.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the core action and scope appear first, followed by the important safety boundary and bulk-support note. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.
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 mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the essential action, target scope, non-destructive boundary, required identifier, and bulk execution. The main remaining gap is the credit_card parameter's precise meaning, but the property name and the 'cartão' context make it reasonably inferable.
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 clarify that invoice_date_or_id is required and explains the bulk invoice_date_or_ids array. However, it does not explain the required credit_card parameter, nor the expected formats for date/id values or precedence between singular and plural 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 uses a specific verb ('Desfaz' / undoes) against a specific resource ('Informar Pagamento' on automatic credit cards), and scopes it further to the Open Finance pending marker. It also explicitly says it does not remove real confirmed payments, which distinguishes it from deletion-like sibling tools.
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 gives clear context: use this when undoing an automatic-card payment inform that is still awaiting Open Finance. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the automatic-card qualifier and the 'does not remove real payments' boundary give strong usage direction.
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.