delete_accountExclui uma conta permanentemente. Só o dono (userId da conta) pode excluir — membros de uma conta conjunta não conseguem, mesmo podendo editá-la via update_account. Não há confirmação adicional nem verificação de transações/cartões vinculados antes de excluir.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID da conta a excluir |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"ID da conta a excluir"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description reveals that deletion is permanent and irreversible, that there is no extra confirmation step, and that linked transactions/cards are not checked before deletion. This is meaningful behavioral context an agent needs to warn the user or set expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, each earning its place: the action and permanence, the permission restriction and sibling contrast, and the missing safety checks. The most important information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations already covering side effects, the description provides all essential context: who may call it, what it does, and what it does not do. Nothing critical is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the `id` parameter is already described as "ID da conta a excluir." The description mentions `userId` in an authorization context but does not add further semantic detail about the parameter itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with "Exclui uma conta permanentemente," which names a specific verb (delete), a specific resource (account), and the key property (permanently). It also differentiates itself from update_account by stating that joint account members can edit but cannot delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states who is allowed to use the tool: only the account owner, identified by `userId`. It also gives a clear when-not condition: joint account members cannot delete even though they can edit via update_account, naming the alternative tool directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.