Atualiza uma categoria (nome, cor, pai, arquivar). Categorias padrão não podem ser excluídas, mas podem ser renomeadas/arquivadas. Prefira NOME (não invente id).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| color | No | ||
| parent | No | ||
| archived | No | ||
| category | 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?
Beyond the minimal annotations, the description discloses important behavioral constraints: default categories cannot be deleted but can be renamed/archived, and callers should prefer names over invented IDs. It also confirms this is an update operation, though it does not detail partial-update semantics or error behavior.
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 short sentences convey the core purpose, key constraints, and a critical parameter preference with no wasted words. The main action and fields are front-loaded, and the caveat/guidance is placed after the primary description.
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 is adequate for a simple update tool and covers the most essential operational notes, but gaps remain: no output schema exists, parameter semantics are partially unexplained, and there is no guidance on what happens when the named category does not exist or when parents/colors are invalid. Given the low schema coverage and absence of output schema, more detail would be expected.
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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does map most fields (name, color, parent, archived) and clarifies that 'category' should receive a name rather than a fabricated ID, but it does not explain value formats or relationships (e.g., valid parent values).
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 clearly states a specific action ('Atualiza uma categoria') and enumerates the updatable attributes (nome, cor, pai, arquivar). It also distinguishes the tool from delete operations by noting that default categories cannot be deleted but can be renamed/archived.
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 implies the tool is for updating an existing category, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools like mass_manage_categories or create_category. It provides a useful identification instruction ('Prefira NOME'), but no clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings.
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.