Cria uma transação na Procfy. data é um JSON string com os campos do payload (type, amount, date, bank_account_id, category_id, contact_id, description, ...). Confira o schema em api-docs.procfy.io/#transacoes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| account | 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 indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). Description adds no further behavioral context, such as whether the transaction is immediately visible, required permissions, or side effects. The reference to API docs is helpful but external.
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 efficient sentences: first states purpose, second details the main parameter and directs to documentation. No redundant words.
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?
As a mutation tool with no output schema, the description should mention what happens after creation (e.g., confirmation response, ID). It does not discuss return values, the optional 'account' parameter, or error cases. The external link partially compensates but the description alone is insufficient for fully informed use.
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 input schema provides only type 'string' for both parameters with 0% coverage. The description adds valuable semantics for the 'data' parameter, explaining it is a JSON string containing fields like type, amount, date, etc. However, the 'account' parameter is left unexplained.
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?
Description clearly states 'Cria uma transação na Procfy.' (Creates a transaction in Procfy). The verb 'create' and resource 'transaction' are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like procfy_get_transaction (read) and procfy_list_transactions (list).
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like procfy_get_transaction or when not to use it. Does not specify prerequisites, such as needing an authenticated account or existing bank account.
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 have clear, distinct purposes, especially the procfy_list_* tools which each target a different entity. The platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) are also distinguishable. However, the marketplace tool is multi-purpose with different actions, which could cause some confusion, but descriptions help.
Procfy-specific tools follow a consistent 'procfy_verb_noun' pattern, but platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) lack a prefix and mix verb and noun forms (e.g., marketplace is a noun). This inconsistency in naming conventions across the set reduces clarity.
With 16 tools, it's slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but still reasonable for a domain covering multiple entities (accounts, bank accounts, categories, etc.). The inclusion of platform tools (6) contributes to the count, but they are necessary for the server's operation.
The server provides extensive list operations and a create for transactions, but lacks update/delete for transactions and CRUD for other entities (categories, contacts, etc.). No tool for getting individual entities (except transaction and bank account balance) or creating/modifying them. Significant gaps for a full lifecycle.