Atualiza uma conta (nome, descrição, instituição, arquivar). Contas automáticas só permitem nome e archived. Prefira NOME (não invente id).
Bulk support: accepts institution_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| account | Yes | ||
| archived | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| hide_balance | No | ||
| institution_id | No | ||
| institution_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 provide only negative hints (readOnly=false, destructive=false), so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It adds useful constraints (automatic-account limitations, identifier preference, bulk support) but does not explain merge/overwrite semantics, the effect of hide_balance, or what the response contains.
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 dense sentences front-load purpose, then add constraints, then bulk support, with no filler or repetition. 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?
The description covers purpose, key constraints, and bulk invocation, but with 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, an agent is still left guessing about hide_balance, return/confirmation behavior, and how institution_ids interacts with the account parameter. This is a viable but incomplete contract.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by mapping name/description/institution/archive to parameters and clarifying that the account should be addressed by NAME, while warning against inventing ids. It also covers institution_ids for bulk, though hide_balance and the exact required account format remain partially implicit.
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?
States explicitly that it updates an account and lists the updatable fields (name, description, institution, archive), making the verb+resource mapping unambiguous. This clearly distinguishes it from create/delete/list account siblings.
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 concrete selection/usage rules: automatic accounts only accept name and archived, prefer the account NAME over an invented id, and use institution_ids for bulk. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the update scope and constraints are clear from context.
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.