OpenMonetis MCP

Atualizar conta

update_account

Modify an existing account by sending only the fields to change: name, type, logo, note, balance exclusion, or archive status.

Instructions

Atualiza uma conta existente (nome, tipo, logo, nota, exclusão do saldo consolidado, arquivamento). Envie apenas os campos que devem mudar.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update_account"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`logo`	No
`name`	No
`note`	No
`type`	No
`confirm`	No
`isArchived`	No
`excludeFromBalance`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.3Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent update. The description adds real value with the partial-update contract, but it says nothing about how archiving or excluding from the consolidated balance behave, or why a `confirm` flag exists.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the operating rule; nothing is wasted. A slight cost is packing the field list into parentheses rather than a structural list.

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?

For an eight-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the definition covers the main update semantics but omits the `confirm` parameter's purpose and the side effects of archival/exclusion flags. An agent could call it, but may misuse `confirm`.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it names six of the eight fields (name, type, logo, note, excludeFromBalance, isArchived) and states the sparse-update rule. However, the non-obvious `confirm` parameter and the `id` identifier are never mentioned, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Atualiza uma conta existente") and enumerates the mutable fields, which distinguishes it from create_account without needing the schema. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not.

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?

"Envie apenas os campos que devem mudar" gives a useful partial-update rule for when to include fields, but there is no guidance on prerequisites, when to prefer a different sibling, or when not to use the tool.

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

Deploy Server