Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenMonetis MCP

OpenMonetis MCP

by Welington98
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Tendência por categoria

get_category_trends
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare spending category changes between two months to identify which categories increased or decreased. Use it to spot spending trends over a period.

Instructions

Compara a evolução de gastos por categoria entre dois meses (inclusive). Útil para responder o que aumentou ou diminuiu no período.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "startPeriod": "<startPeriod>",
      "endPeriod": "<endPeriod>"
    },
    "name": "get_category_trends"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endPeriodYes
categoryIdsNo
personScopeNo
startPeriodYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.3

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that both endpoint months are included in the comparison. It does not say whether the comparison is returned as absolute deltas, percentages, or per-month values, nor whether missing categories are omitted or zero-filled.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that states the operation, then a second clause on its purpose, with no filler. It is tight, though the brevity comes at the cost of the parameter coverage noted elsewhere.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a four-parameter analytical read with no output schema, the description identifies the operation and the inclusive two-month window but omits how categories and person scope shape the result. Given the rich annotations and the simple input shape, this is close, but an agent still cannot tell what the category filter or person scope will change in the output.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters, so the description must carry the meaning. It only clarifies that the two period parameters form an inclusive two-month window. The categoryIds filter and especially personScope ('admin' / 'all' / a person UUID) are never mentioned, leaving the agent to guess what those arguments do.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: it compares spending evolution by category across two months, inclusive. That is clear enough to distinguish it from point-in-time reads like get_dashboard_overview. It stops short of naming which sibling to use when the agent wants a single-month breakdown or a per-person report.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The second clause ('Útil para responder o que aumentou ou diminuiu no período') tells the agent the kind of question this answers, which is genuine when-to-use guidance. There is no when-not-to-use statement and no alternative tool named for related needs such as person-level reporting, so the routing is only implied.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools