Skip to main content
Glama

CDF Finance

by io.github.VessellTech

Atualizar meta

update_goal
Idempotent

Atualiza uma meta (parcial — campos omitidos ou string vazia mantêm o valor atual). Diferente de create_goal, devolve apenas { count } (1 se atualizou, 0 se o id não existe ou não pertence ao usuário), não a meta atualizada — use list_goals para conferir o resultado.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesId da meta (Goal) a atualizar
nameNo
colorNo
categoryNo
currencyNo
deadlineNoNovo prazo (data ISO). Envie string vazia não remove o prazo — não há como limpar deadline por esta tool
targetAmountNo
currentAmountNoNovo valor acumulado — útil para registrar um aporte manual na meta

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed7 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / category
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / color
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / currency
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / currentAmount / description
      Added value: +"Novo valor acumulado — útil para registrar um aporte manual na meta"
    • addedInput schema / properties / deadline
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Novo prazo (data ISO). Envie string vazia não remove o prazo — não há como limpar deadline por esta tool",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Added value: +"Id da meta (Goal) a atualizar"
    • removedInput schema / properties / targetDate
      Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses behaviors far beyond the annotations: partial semantics (omitted or empty-string fields keep the current value), the `{ count }` return shape instead of the updated goal, and the edge case where count=0 (id not found or not owned by the user). These are precisely the behavioral traits an agent needs beyond readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints.

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 dense sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the primary semantics ('Atualiza uma meta (parcial...)'). Every clause earns its place: scope, sibling contrast, return shape, edge cases, and verification pointer.

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?

Even with an output schema present, the description adds the count semantics and ownership edge case, covers partial behavior, and provides the verification path and sibling distinction. Nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly 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?

Schema coverage is only 38%, but the description compensates with a universal partial-update rule that applies to all 8 parameters. It doesn't add per-field detail, yet the remaining parameter names (name, color, category, currency, targetAmount) are self-explanatory, and the deadline empty-string caveat in the schema is consistent with the description's general rule.

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 ('Atualiza') and resource ('meta') and immediately defines its partial-update scope. The explicit contrast with create_goal distinguishes it from its closest sibling, and the return-shape note removes ambiguity about what the tool does not do.

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 names create_goal as the alternative it differs from ('Diferente de create_goal') and points the agent to list_goals as the verification tool for confirming results. This cleanly routes the agent across the create/update/read decision space for goals.

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