OpenMonetis MCP

Atualizar transação

update_transaction

Update specific fields of an existing transaction by sending only changed values; omitted fields stay intact, and without confirm it returns a dry-run payload preview.

Instructions

Atualiza campos de uma transação existente. Envie apenas os campos que devem mudar — campos omitidos são preservados (inclusive condition, installmentCount e recurrenceFrequency). Sem confirm: true a ferramenta devolve o payload que seria enviado.

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_transaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`name`	No
`note`	No
`type`	No	Tipo da transação. Transferências (type: 'transfer') só aceitam condition: 'single'.
`amount`	No
`cardId`	No
`tagIds`	No
`confirm`	No
`dueDate`	No
`personId`	No
`accountId`	No
`condition`	No	'single' (única, padrão), 'installment' (parcelada) ou 'recurring' (recorrente). Transferências só aceitam 'single'.
`isSettled`	No
`categoryId`	No
`settledDate`	No
`splitShares`	No	Divisão entre pessoas. A soma deve ser igual ao amount.
`purchaseDate`	No
`invoicePeriod`	No	Fatura do cartão (apenas crédito não recorrente).
`paymentMethod`	No	Forma de pagamento. Transferências (type: 'transfer') exigem 'bank_transfer'.
`sourceAccountId`	No	Conta de origem, obrigatória em transferências.
`installmentCount`	No
`startInstallment`	No
`boletoPaymentDate`	No
`recurrenceEndDate`	No
`recurrenceFrequency`	No
`destinationAccountId`	No	Conta de destino, obrigatória em transferências.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.3Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so safety is partly covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: PATCH semantics where omitted fields are preserved, an explicit callout that condition/installmentCount/recurrenceFrequency will not be silently reset, and a dry-run mode gated by `confirm`. It does not describe error behavior, authorization needs, or what the preview payload contains beyond the phrase 'o payload que seria enviado'.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, the partial-update rule second, the dry-run gate last. No repetition of schema or annotation content and no filler.

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 a 26-parameter, no-output-schema mutation with cross-field rules (transfers requiring bank_transfer with source/destination accounts, splitShares summing to amount, installment vs recurring constraints), the description covers the editing model but leaves most business rules to the sparse schema. An agent could perform a basic update correctly but would need to infer conditional requirements.

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 only 27% across 26 parameters, so the description carries a heavy burden; it covers `confirm` semantics (undocumented in the schema) and the collective omission/preservation rule that applies to every field, which is real added meaning. However, the many domain-specific fields with no schema description — amount, cardId, tagIds, splitShares interaction with amount, isSettled/settledDate, startInstallment — get no explanation here, so compensation is partial.

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 and resource ('Atualiza campos de uma transação existente'), making it unambiguous that this is a partial update of an existing transaction rather than a creation or deletion. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it differs from (create_transaction, delete_transaction), but the word 'existente' plus the field-level framing make the scope clear.

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 operating instructions: send only the fields that should change, and call without `confirm: true` to get a preview payload instead of a write. That effectively tells the agent the two-step preview-then-apply workflow. It stops short of naming alternative tools or stating prerequisites such as permissions on the transaction.

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

Deploy Server