CDF Finance

Atualizar transação recorrente

update_recurring_transaction

Idempotent

Atualiza a regra recorrente (parcial — campo omitido/vazio mantém o valor atual). Só altera a regra em si: não retroage nem edita as transações já geradas por ela (use update_transaction/delete_transaction para essas), e não gera novas ocorrências — dispara apenas recálculo de projeções/insights (analytics.recalculate + insights).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	ID da regra recorrente a atualizar
`type`	No	Tipo das ocorrências futuras
`amount`	No	Novo valor — vale só para ocorrências futuras ainda não geradas, não retroage
`cardId`	No	Novo cartão usado para ocorrências EXPENSE
`endDate`	No	Data ISO
`category`	No	Rótulo livre da categoria (texto)
`isActive`	No	false pausa a regra (sem gerar novas ocorrências), sem excluir as já geradas
`accountId`	No	Nova conta usada para débito/crédito
`frequency`	No	Ex: MONTHLY, WEEKLY, YEARLY
`startDate`	No	Data ISO
`description`	No	Nova descrição das ocorrências futuras
`costCenterId`	No	Novo centro de custo
`destinationAccountId`	No	Nova conta de destino, se as ocorrências forem transferências

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No

Schema Changelog

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

Changed6 schema fields changedSep 1, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / accountId / description
```
Added value: +"Nova conta usada para débito/crédito"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / cardId / description
```
Added value: +"Novo cartão usado para ocorrências EXPENSE"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / costCenterId / description
```
Added value: +"Novo centro de custo"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / description / description
```
Added value: +"Nova descrição das ocorrências futuras"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / destinationAccountId / description
```
Added value: +"Nova conta de destino, se as ocorrências forem transferências"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / type / description
```
Added value: +"Tipo das ocorrências futuras"
```

Changed12 schema fields changedSep 1, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / accountId
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedInput schema / properties / amount / description

Added value: +"Novo valor — vale só para ocorrências futuras ainda não geradas, não retroage"

addedInput schema / properties / cardId
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedInput schema / properties / category

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Rótulo livre da categoria (texto)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / costCenterId
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
addedInput schema / properties / destinationAccountId
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
addedInput schema / properties / endDate / description
```
Added value: +"Data ISO"
```

addedInput schema / properties / frequency

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Ex: MONTHLY, WEEKLY, YEARLY",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / id / description

Added value: +"ID da regra recorrente a atualizar"

addedInput schema / properties / isActive / description

Added value: +"false pausa a regra (sem gerar novas ocorrências), sem excluir as já geradas"

addedInput schema / properties / startDate

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Data ISO",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / type

Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "EXPENSE",
+    "INCOME"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Even though annotations already cover readOnly/destructive/idempotent hints, the description adds substantial behavioral context: omitted/empty fields preserve current values, changes do not retroactively affect existing transactions, no new occurrences are generated, and only projections/insights are recalculated. This goes well beyond the annotation metadata.

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 is compact yet information-dense, with the core behavior and partial-update caveat front-loaded. The parentheticals and em-dash efficiently convey boundary conditions without padding or repetition. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has 13 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description only needs to add the behavioral envelope, and it does so thoroughly: side effects, non-effects, and alternatives. The presence of an output schema also reduces the need to explain return values. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a meaningful description. The tool description adds important cross-cutting semantic value by stating that the update is partial: omitted/empty fields keep their current value. This clarifies how all parameters behave together rather than repeating per-parameter schema details.

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'), the resource ('a regra recorrente'), and precise scope: partial update, no retroactive effect, no new occurrences, and analytics recalculation. It clearly distinguishes this from related transaction-editing tools by naming update_transaction/delete_transaction as the alternative for already-generated transactions.

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 tells the agent when NOT to use this tool: not for already-generated transactions, directing to update_transaction/delete_transaction instead. It also clarifies that it does not generate new occurrences, which prevents misuse when the goal is to create future instances.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All CDF Finance tools Inspect

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.

Atualizar transação recorrente

Input Schema

Output Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources