delete_categoryExclui uma categoria (ou subcategoria) permanentemente. Não há verificação de transações/orçamentos vinculados antes de excluir — não exclui em cascata subcategorias filhas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID da categoria 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 categoria a excluir"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, but the description adds important non-obvious details: there is no verification of linked transactions/budgets before deletion, and child subcategories are not cascade-deleted. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.
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?
The description is two short, purposeful sentences. The main behavior is front-loaded, and the critical caveats about linked data and subcategory handling are stated without unnecessary words.
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 one-parameter destructive operation with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral context: permanence, absence of validation, and non-cascade behavior. It does not explain what happens to orphaned subcategories, but the other structured information reduces that burden.
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?
The schema already covers the only parameter 'id' with a description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description confirms that the id may refer to a category or subcategory but does not add deeper semantic detail beyond the schema.
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 categoria (ou subcategoria) permanentemente,' which clearly states the specific action, resource, and scope. It also clarifies that subcategories are included, distinguishing it from broader or sibling delete tools.
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 purpose statement makes it clear that this tool is used when a category or subcategory should be removed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like update_category or create_category, nor does it state conditions for when this tool should not be used.
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.