Skip to main content
Glama

Sicoob MCP

by io.github.mcp-dir

openfinance_update_transaction_category

Corrects the category of one or more transactions (PATCH /transactions/:id). Pass items as an array of { transaction_id, category_id } — transaction_id comes from openfinance_list_transactions, category_id from openfinance_list_categories. This overrides Pluggy's automatic categorization AND teaches Pluggy: recategorizing a transaction automatically creates a Category Rule for this client (case-insensitive exact match on the transaction's data), so FUTURE similar transactions are categorized the same way — use this to fix miscategorized transactions and improve categorization accuracy going forward. Batch shape: returns { updated, results: [{ transaction_id, category, categoryId }], errors: [{ id, status, message }] } — per-item errors do not fail the whole batch.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added
  4. Removed
  5. Added
  6. Removed
  7. Added
  8. Removed
  9. Added
  10. Removed
  11. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate non-destructive mutation, and the description adds critical details: the tool overrides automatic categorization and creates a learning rule, plus batch error handling behavior. No annotation contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is fairly concise given the complexity, front-loading the core purpose. However, it could be slightly shorter by omitting some detail about the batch response shape.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema is present, but the description provides the return structure and error handling behavior. Side effects and prerequisites are fully covered, making it complete for agent use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 0% description coverage; the description compensates by detailing the 'items' format, and explaining the origin and purpose of both transaction_id and category_id, adding substantial meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool corrects transaction categories via PATCH, and distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing specific companion tools for ID lookup.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explains when to use (fix miscategorizations) and describes the side effect of creating a Category Rule, guiding effective use. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Sicoob MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most openfinance_* tools target clearly distinct resources (accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections, categories). Minor overlap exists—list_accounts returns balances and list_transactions_by_item consolidates what list_transactions provides—but the detailed descriptions distinguish them adequately.

Naming Consistency4/5

The openfinance_* tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_*, list_*, update_*, force_sync, search_*) with one slight deviation: openfinance_provider_status omits a verb. The non-openfinance platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, etc.) break the prefix pattern, creating two naming conventions within the same server.

Tool Count3/5

25 tools sits at the upper boundary of acceptable for a comprehensive Open Finance banking adapter, covering accounts, transactions, credit cards, loans, investments, and connection management. However, including meta-platform tools like marketplace and toolkit_info inflates the count and makes the set feel heavier than a pure banking tool surface.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core Open Finance lifecycle well: list/get accounts, balances, transactions, credit card bills, loans, investments, connection management, category correction, and provider status. Gaps include no direct new-bank connection tool (only URLs) and no investment detail endpoint beyond transactions, but agents can work around these.

Resources