delete_goalExclui permanentemente uma meta do usuário. Não afeta transações já vinculadas a ela (Transaction.goalId fica órfão).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Id da meta (Goal) 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 meta (Goal) a excluir"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description builds on them by disclosing irreversibility ('permanentemente') and the side-effect that Transaction.goalId becomes orphaned. This adds genuine behavioral context beyond what annotations convey.
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 short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the critical side-effect second. There is no filler or repetition of the input schema.
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 delete operation, the definition supplies the irreversible behavior, the scope ('do usuário'), and the important consequence for linked transactions. Combined with the annotations and full schema coverage, nothing essential is missing to invoke this tool correctly.
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 description coverage is 100%: the schema already documents 'id' as 'Id da meta (Goal) a excluir'. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so it neither improves nor harms the schema's baseline.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Exclui permanentemente uma meta') and adds a meaningful behavioral qualifier ('Não afeta transações já vinculadas'), so an agent can tell this is a goal-deletion operation distinct from deleting transactions. It does not explicitly reference sibling tools, so it stops short of the strongest differentiation.
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 sentence 'Não afeta transações já vinculadas a ela' gives clear decision-relevant context: use this when the goal should be removed but its linked transactions must be preserved. It does not spell out when-not-to-use or name an alternative like delete_transaction, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
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.