Skip to main content
Glama

CDF Finance

by io.github.VessellTech

Excluir investimento

delete_equity
DestructiveIdempotent

Exclui permanentemente um ativo de investimento do usuário dono (id = id do investimento). Não afeta transações já lançadas ligadas a ele (equityId fica órfão); o histórico de avaliações (EquityValuation) é removido junto via cascade do banco. count retorna 0 se o id não existir ou não pertencer ao usuário (sem erro).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesId do investimento a excluir

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Added value: +"Id do investimento a excluir"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing that deletion is permanent, related transactions remain but become orphaned, EquityValuation history is removed via cascade, and count returns 0 without error when the id does not exist or is not owned by the user.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by the two most important consequences and an edge-case behavior. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant or promotional language.

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?

With one simple parameter and an output schema present, the description fully covers the tool's behavior: what is deleted, what is preserved, what is cascaded, and how missing or unauthorized ids are handled. No critical context 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?

The schema already fully documents the id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics: the id must belong to the user, and nonexistent or unauthorized ids produce a silent count of 0 rather than an error.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it permanently deletes an investment asset belonging to the owner user. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_equity and list_equities by emphasizing permanence and the delete action.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The intended use is clear: call this when permanently removing an investment asset. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the ownership condition and the no-error behavior for missing ids provide sufficient context for when this tool applies.

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

All CDF Finance toolsInspect
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.

Resources