CDF Finance

Criar orçamento

create_budget

Cria um orçamento (limite planejado) por categoria e período. name e type são obrigatórios no banco e não têm default — omiti-los grava valores vazios e quebra o cruzamento com transações feito por budget_comparison (que casa Transaction.type = Budget.type). Efeito colateral: recalcula analytics (cashflow/networth) e insights do usuário. Diferente de create_goal (meta de acúmulo) e create_debt (dívida a pagar).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Nome do orçamento (ex: 'Mercado de Janeiro')
`type`	Yes	Tipo — precisa bater com o Transaction.type das transações que devem contar para este orçamento
`year`	Yes	Ano do período (ex: 2026)
`month`	No	Mês (1-12), obrigatório apenas quando period = MONTHLY
`amount`	Yes	Valor orçado/limite do período
`period`	No	Periodicidade. Sem default no banco: se omitido, o orçamento não casa com a regra MONTHLY em budget_comparison/budget_daily e acaba tratado como anual — prefira sempre informar
`category`	No	Nome da categoria a limitar (deve bater com Transaction.category). Omitido ou 'ALL' = todas as categorias desse type
`currency`	No	Moeda (ISO 4217). Default: BRL

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`name`	No
`type`	No
`year`	No
`month`	No
`amount`	No
`period`	No
`userId`	No
`category`	No
`currency`	No
`createdAt`	No
`updatedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed10 schema fields changedSep 1, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / amount / description
```
Added value: +"Valor orçado/limite do período"
```

addedInput schema / properties / category

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Nome da categoria a limitar (deve bater com Transaction.category). Omitido ou 'ALL' = todas as categorias desse type",
+  "type": "string"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / categoryId
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```

addedInput schema / properties / currency

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Moeda (ISO 4217). Default: BRL",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / month / description

Added value: +"Mês (1-12), obrigatório apenas quando period = MONTHLY"

addedInput schema / properties / name

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Nome do orçamento (ex: 'Mercado de Janeiro')",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / period

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Periodicidade. Sem default no banco: se omitido, o orçamento não casa com a regra MONTHLY em budget_comparison/budget_daily e acaba tratado como anual — prefira sempre informar",
+  "enum": [
+    "MONTHLY",
+    "YEARLY"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / type

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Tipo — precisa bater com o Transaction.type das transações que devem contar para este orçamento",
+  "enum": [
+    "INCOME",
+    "EXPENSE",
+    "INVESTMENT"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / year / description
```
Added value: +"Ano do período (ex: 2026)"
```

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "categoryId",
-  "amount",
-  "year",
-  "month"
-]New value: +[
+  "name",
+  "type",
+  "amount",
+  "year"
+]

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false), the description discloses an important side effect: recalculation of analytics and user insights. It also reveals harmful behavior when required fields are omitted — empty values break the join with budget_comparison — which is highly valuable for an agent.

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 dense, well-structured sentences: the purpose comes first, followed by critical DB constraints and side effects, then sibling differentiation. Every sentence contributes value and the description remains compact.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description, combined with a fully documented schema, an output schema, and annotations, covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, critical constraints, side effects, and sibling distinctions. No meaningful information an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context about name and type: they are required in the database, have no default, and omitting them causes empty values and breaks transaction matching. This goes beyond the schema's required list and enum descriptions.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Cria um orçamento (limite planejado) por categoria e período.' It also explicitly differentiates itself from create_goal and create_debt, so an agent can distinguish this from similarly named budget/goal/debt creation tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly names alternatives (create_goal and create_debt) and explains what each is for, making it clear when not to use this tool. It also gives critical usage warnings about mandatory name/type fields and the consequences of omitting them, which is strong operational guidance.

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

All CDF Finance tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

The tools are individually well-described and many cross-reference their closest neighbors, but the set contains several easily confused clusters: create_transaction/confirm_new_transaction, update_equity/add_equity_valuation, the invoice tools (current_invoice, next_invoice, list_pending_invoices, get_invoice), and the many analytics/projection tools. The descriptions help a careful reader, but with 81 tools an agent is likely to misselect among these overlapping surfaces.

Naming Consistency3/5

CRUD operations consistently use create_/list_/update_/delete_ plus a resource noun, and all names are snake_case. However, there is a large second group of noun-phrase analytics tools (cashflow_forecast, spending_projection, categories_insights, transport_routine) plus one-off verbs such as can_afford, pay_invoice, and validate_current_invoices, so the naming convention is mixed even though it remains readable.

Tool Count1/5

81 tools is far beyond the practical MCP tool surface and exceeds the rubric's 50+ extreme-mismatch threshold. Even if each tool maps to a real finance endpoint, the volume overwhelms an agent's context window and makes selection much harder.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the finance lifecycle extensively: accounts, cards, invoices, transactions, recurring rules, budgets, goals, debts, equities, categories, tags, cost centers, profile, projections, and insights all have working read/write paths. Minor gaps remain, such as no update/delete for tags and no direct update/delete for system-generated invoices, but agents can usually work around these.

Criar orçamento

Input Schema

Output Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources