Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenMonetis MCP

OpenMonetis MCP

by Welington98
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Listar categorias

list_categories
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves the user's income and expense categories with IDs for use in filters and when creating transactions or budgets.

Instructions

Lista as categorias de receita e despesa do usuário. Use os IDs retornados em filtros e ao criar transações ou orçamentos.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_categories"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
detailNocompact retorna id e nome; full devolve o objeto completo.compact

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.3

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful workflow context (the IDs feed filters and create operations) but says nothing about pagination, whether archived/inactive categories are included, or the return shape.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences with zero filler, front-loading what the tool returns before explaining how the result is used. Every clause carries information.

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 simple one-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed, whose data it is, and what the IDs are for. Only the absence of return-shape or pagination detail keeps it from a 5.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'detail' parameter is already documented in the schema with its enum meanings (compact = id and name, full = complete object). The description adds no further semantics about this parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('categorias de receita e despesa do usuário'), scoping it to the user's own income/expense categories. That is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_accounts or list_budgets, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with any of them.

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?

Gives concrete downstream guidance: use the returned IDs in filters and when creating transactions or budgets, which frames the tool as an enumeration/prerequisite step. It does not state when not to call it or name an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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