OpenMonetis MCP

Listar metas

list_goals

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists financial goals with target, current, remaining amounts, progress, deadline, and pace, optionally filtered by status, to track if each goal is ahead, on track, or behind.

Instructions

Lista as metas financeiras com valor alvo, valor atual, restante, progresso, prazo e ritmo (adiantado, no prazo, atrasado).

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_goals"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.3Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

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 structurally. The description adds value by disclosing that each goal carries derived metrics (remaining amount, progress, pace classification), which is behavior beyond the annotations. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, or whether inactive goals appear.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the returned fields with no filler. The parenthetical enumerating pace values is informative rather than wasteful.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, the description does a reasonable job of explaining what comes back by listing the returned fields. However, for a filtered-list tool it omits the one thing an agent must know before calling: the behavior of the status parameter and the default scope.

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% for the single 'status' parameter, and the description never mentions filtering by status at all. The crucial ambiguity — whether omitting status returns all goals or only active ones — is left unresolved in both the schema and the description.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Lista as metas financeiras') and enumerates the fields returned, so the agent knows exactly what this tool surfaces. It does not differentiate itself from the many sibling list_* tools (list_budgets, list_accounts, etc.), which keeps it short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool, no mention of what the status filter does, and no stated alternatives. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the goals-listing tool.

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

Deploy Server