update_cost_centerAtualiza nome/descrição de um centro de custo (parcial — campo omitido/vazio mantém o valor atual).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID do centro de custo a atualizar | |
| name | No | Novo nome do centro de custo | |
| description | No | Nova descrição livre |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| userId | No | ||
| createdAt | No | ||
| isDefault | No | ||
| updatedAt | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / description / descriptionAdded value: +"Nova descrição livre"Input schema / properties / name / descriptionAdded value: +"Novo nome do centro de custo"Input schema / properties / colorRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / descriptionAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / iconRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"ID do centro de custo a atualizar"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: omitted or empty fields preserve the current value, which is critical for a partial update call. It is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true; it does not go into side effects or permissions, but the annotations lower that burden.
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?
One compact sentence with a parenthetical qualifier; every phrase adds value and no schema information is repeated unnecessarily. The key update scope is front-loaded.
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 three-parameter update tool, the description, complete input schema, idempotentHint annotation, and output schema together supply enough to invoke it correctly without further documentation. The partial-update nuance is explicitly included.
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%, so the baseline is satisfied. The description adds parameter-level meaning by clarifying that name/description can be partially supplied and that omitting or sending an empty string keeps existing values, which the schema itself does not state.
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 identifies a specific action ('Atualiza'), a precise resource ('centro de custo'), and the affected fields ('nome/descrição'). This distinguishes it from create_cost_center, delete_cost_center, list_cost_centers, and the other update_* siblings without ambiguity.
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?
There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_cost_center for a new center or delete_cost_center for removal. The reader must infer the update use case from the verb; the partial-update note is operational behavior, not usage-selection guidance.
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.