CDF Finance

Criar dívida

create_debt

Registra uma dívida do usuário. Se equityId for informado, precisa pertencer ao usuário (validado antes de gravar — erro 400 'Invalid equityId' caso contrário) e representa o ativo financiado por essa dívida (ex: financiamento vinculado ao imóvel). Efeito colateral: recalcula analytics (patrimônio líquido) e insights do usuário.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Nome/descrição da dívida (ex: 'Financiamento do carro')
`status`	No	Default: ACTIVE
`dueDate`	No	Data de vencimento (ISO)
`category`	No	Categoria livre da dívida (ex: 'Financiamento', 'Empréstimo pessoal')
`creditor`	No	Nome do credor/instituição
`currency`	No	Moeda (ISO 4217). Default: BRL
`equityId`	No	Id de um Equity (investimento/ativo) do usuário financiado por esta dívida
`description`	No
`totalAmount`	Yes	Valor total original da dívida
`interestRate`	No	Taxa de juros mensal em % (ex: 1.5 = 1.5% a.m.), usada para projetar o saldo devedor futuro
`remainingAmount`	No	Saldo devedor atual. Default: 0 se omitido — informe para não zerar a dívida por engano

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`name`	No
`status`	No
`userId`	No
`dueDate`	No
`category`	No
`creditor`	No
`currency`	No
`equityId`	No
`createdAt`	No
`updatedAt`	No
`description`	No
`totalAmount`	No
`interestRate`	No
`remainingAmount`	No

Schema Changelog

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

Changed11 schema fields changedSep 1, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / category

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Categoria livre da dívida (ex: 'Financiamento', 'Empréstimo pessoal')",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / creditor / description
```
Added value: +"Nome do credor/instituição"
```

addedInput schema / properties / currency

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

addedInput schema / properties / description
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
addedInput schema / properties / dueDate / description
```
Added value: +"Data de vencimento (ISO)"
```

addedInput schema / properties / equityId / description

Added value: +"Id de um Equity (investimento/ativo) do usuário financiado por esta dívida"

addedInput schema / properties / interestRate / description

Added value: +"Taxa de juros mensal em % (ex: 1.5 = 1.5% a.m.), usada para projetar o saldo devedor futuro"

addedInput schema / properties / name / description

Added value: +"Nome/descrição da dívida (ex: 'Financiamento do carro')"

addedInput schema / properties / remainingAmount / description

Added value: +"Saldo devedor atual. Default: 0 se omitido — informe para não zerar a dívida por engano"

addedInput schema / properties / status

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Default: ACTIVE",
+  "enum": [
+    "ACTIVE",
+    "PAID",
+    "OVERDUE"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / totalAmount / description
```
Added value: +"Valor total original da dívida"
```

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations: equityId is validated to belong to the user before saving, with a specific 400 'Invalid equityId' error otherwise. It also explicitly warns about the side effect of recalculating analytics and insights, which is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know.

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?

The description is efficiently structured: a one-line primary purpose, then the most important conditional parameter behavior, then the side effect disclosure. Every sentence adds information not already available in the schema or annotations, with no filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, 2 required, a create operation with side effects) and the rich schema and output schema, the description covers the essential non-obvious aspects: equityId ownership constraints, the resulting error, and analytics/insights recalculation. Nothing critical for correct invocation appears to be 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?

With 91% schema description coverage, the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds valuable semantic context for equityId by explaining ownership validation, the error case, and the asset-financed-by-debt relationship, going beyond the schema's brief field description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Registra uma dívida do usuário' (records a user's debt), making the tool's core action immediately clear. It also adds distinguishing details like the equityId financing relationship, which separates this create-debt operation from generic transaction or account creation siblings.

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?

The description clearly implies this is for registering a new debt, and the presence of update_debt/delete_debt siblings makes the create-vs-update distinction inferable. However, it never explicitly states when to choose create_debt over update_debt or how to handle an existing debt, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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 dívida

Input Schema

Output Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources