Skip to main content
Glama

QI SCD MCP

by io.github.mcp-dir

openfinance_update_transaction_category

Corrects the category of one or more transactions (PATCH /transactions/:id). Pass items as an array of { transaction_id, category_id } — transaction_id comes from openfinance_list_transactions, category_id from openfinance_list_categories. This overrides Pluggy's automatic categorization AND teaches Pluggy: recategorizing a transaction automatically creates a Category Rule for this client (case-insensitive exact match on the transaction's data), so FUTURE similar transactions are categorized the same way — use this to fix miscategorized transactions and improve categorization accuracy going forward. Batch shape: returns { updated, results: [{ transaction_id, category, categoryId }], errors: [{ id, status, message }] } — per-item errors do not fail the whole batch.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added
  4. Removed
  5. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations (which indicate a write operation), the description reveals important side effects: overriding Pluggy's automatic categorization and creating a Category Rule. It also explains partial batch errors.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is moderately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose. It efficiently explains input, side effect, and response format without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (batch update with side effects and partial errors), the description covers input, behavior, and output shape. It does not mention limitations or prerequisites, but it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage; the description compensates by explaining the structure of 'items' as an array of { transaction_id, category_id } and where to obtain those IDs, adding meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'corrects' and the resource 'category of one or more transactions', with the endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools like openfinance_list_transactions by specifying the source of IDs.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly states the use case: 'fix miscategorized transactions and improve categorization accuracy going forward.' It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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

All QI SCD MCP 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly distinct, especially within the openfinance_* group, with detailed descriptions covering specific resources and actions. Minor overlap exists between list_transactions and list_transactions_by_item, and between get_credit_card_bill and list_credit_card_bills, but the descriptions clearly delineate their use cases (per-account vs whole-connection, detail vs summary).

Naming Consistency4/5

The openfinance_* tools consistently follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_accounts, get_item_status, update_transaction_category), with the exception of openfinance_provider_status which uses a noun phrase. Non-openfinance tools like authenticate, connect, marketplace, and report_bug are less uniform but still readable. Overall, the convention is mostly consistent.

Tool Count4/5

At 25 tools, this is on the higher end but justified by the comprehensive Open Finance domain covering accounts, transactions, credit cards, loans, investments, connections, categories, and provider status. Each tool serves a specific operation, and the marketplace and platform utilities round out the surface. It's slightly heavy but not excessive.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for Open Finance data: listing and detailing accounts, retrieving balances, managing transactions (including categorization), handling credit card bills (list and detail with transactions), loans, investments, and connection health (sync, status, disconnect, search). Also includes authentication, marketplace, and utility tools. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.

Resources