Skip to main content
Glama

CDF Finance

by io.github.VessellTech

Atualizar cartão

update_card
Idempotent

Atualiza campos de um cartão (parcial — campo omitido mantém o valor atual). Para tornar o cartão 'Sem Limite' envie limit: "none" (o literal, não omitir e não 0 — omitir mantém o limite atual, 0 vira um limite de fato zero). Não permite alterar currentInvoice/limitUsed diretamente: esses campos são recalculados automaticamente pelo backend a partir das faturas e transações reais, então não fazem parte do input desta tool.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID do cartão a atualizar
nameNoNovo nome/apelido do cartão
brandNoEx: VISA, MASTERCARD
colorNoCor hex para exibição
limitNoNovo limite total, ou o literal 'none' para remover o teto de crédito (cartão 'Sem Limite')
dueDayNoDia do vencimento da fatura (1-31)
currencyNoMoeda ISO 4217
accountIdNoID da conta usada para pagar a fatura deste cartão
closingDayNoDia do fechamento da fatura (1-31)
lastFourDigitsNoÚltimos 4 dígitos do cartão

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / lastFourDigits / description
      Added value: +"Últimos 4 dígitos do cartão"
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Added value: +"Novo nome/apelido do cartão"
  2. Changed10 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / accountId / description
      Added value: +"ID da conta usada para pagar a fatura deste cartão"
    • addedInput schema / properties / brand / description
      Added value: +"Ex: VISA, MASTERCARD"
    • addedInput schema / properties / closingDay / description
      Added value: +"Dia do fechamento da fatura (1-31)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / color
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Cor hex para exibição",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / currency
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Moeda ISO 4217",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / dueDay / description
      Added value: +"Dia do vencimento da fatura (1-31)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Added value: +"ID do cartão a atualizar"
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  {
+    "const": "none",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"Novo limite total, ou o literal 'none' para remover o teto de crédito (cartão 'Sem Limite')"
    • removedInput schema / properties / limit / type
      Removed value: -"number"
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=true, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: partial updates preserve omitted fields, the literal 'none' removes the limit while 0 creates a real zero limit, and currentInvoice/limitUsed are backend-recalculated and therefore not part of the input. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core partial-update semantics, then the special limit behavior, then the non-editable fields. Every sentence carries distinct, necessary information with no 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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description covers the remaining ambiguous behavior: partial updates, the special 'none' literal, and backend-managed fields. An agent has enough information to invoke update_card correctly. Explicit sibling routing is the only minor gap, and it is not essential for calling the tool successfully.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining the limit edge cases ('none' literal vs omitted vs 0) and by clarifying that currentInvoice/limitUsed are intentionally excluded because the backend recalculates them. This goes beyond what the property descriptions alone provide.

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: 'Atualiza campos de um cartão' (updates fields of a card), and immediately adds the key partial-update qualifier. This clearly distinguishes it from create_card, delete_card, and list_cards in the sibling set, even without naming them.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The partial-update behavior and the warning about currentInvoice/limitUsed imply this is the tool for modifying existing cards, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or guidance about when to prefer create_card or avoid this tool. Usage is clear by implication, not by explicit routing.

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