delete_cost_centerExclui um centro de custo permanentemente. Retorna erro se o centro de custo for o padrão (isDefault: true) — todo usuário precisa ter ao menos um. Não verifica transações/recorrências vinculadas antes de excluir.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID do centro de custo a excluir |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| success | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"ID do centro de custo a excluir"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description discloses two important behaviors: the operation is permanent, and there is no validation of linked transactions/recurrences before deletion. This is exactly the kind of safety-critical behavioral context an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by essential caveats. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant or vague wording.
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 an output schema, the description covers the action, irreversibility, a critical error condition, and the lack of referential checks. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it.
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 fully documents the single `id` parameter with 100% coverage. The description does not add extra parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states a specific action ('Exclui permanentemente') on a specific resource ('centro de custo'), and adds distinguishing details like the default cost center protection. It is unambiguous and immediately differentiates this deletion tool from update or list cost center 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 description provides clear context for when deletion is allowed: it will fail for the default cost center, and it warns that linked transactions/recurrences are not checked. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the usage conditions are strong enough to guide an agent.
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.