Skip to main content
Glama

CDF Finance

by io.github.VessellTech

Excluir transação recorrente

delete_recurring_transaction
DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a regra recorrente e TODAS as transações que ela já gerou (inclusive futuras/pendentes e vínculos de fatura de cartão) — reverte o limite usado do cartão das ocorrências já pagas antes de apagar. Ação irreversível; para só parar de gerar novas ocorrências sem apagar o histórico, use update_recurring_transaction com isActive: false.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID da regra recorrente a excluir

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
successNo

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 da regra recorrente 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?

Beyond the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations, the description discloses the full cascade: it removes generated transactions including pending/future ones, unlinks card invoice associations, and reverses used card limits on already paid occurrences. It also explicitly states the action is irreversible. This goes well beyond what annotations already convey.

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 opens with the core destructive action and its scope, then adds the irreversibility warning and the safer alternative. Each clause contributes necessary information without redundancy or filler.

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?

For a destructive cascade operation with a single parameter, the description covers the full deletion scope, side effects on card limits, irreversibility, and the alternative. An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be explained in the description.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter id is already fully described in the input schema as the ID of the recurring rule to delete. The description does not add new parameter-specific semantics, but with 100% schema description coverage, the schema carries the burden adequately.

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 identifies the specific action: removing a recurring rule and ALL transactions it generated, including future/pending ones and card invoice links. It also clearly distinguishes this from the sibling update_recurring_transaction by naming it and explaining what it does differently. An agent can confidently select this tool for full deletion.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: when the recurring rule and its generated transactions should be removed entirely. It also provides the alternative: use update_recurring_transaction with isActive: false if only future generation should stop without deleting history. This is direct, actionable routing guidance.

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