delete_transactionSoft-delete an existing transaction by ID so it no longer appears in normal spending summaries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deleted_reason | No | ||
| transaction_id | Yes | ||
| client_request_id | No | Optional idempotency key. Omit for normal one-off calls. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide destructiveness and idempotence hints. Description adds 'soft-delete' nuance and effect on spending summaries, which is valuable beyond structured data.
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?
Single sentence, direct, front-loaded with key action and effect. No wasted words.
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?
Presence of output schema compensates some gaps. Could mention reversibility via restore_transaction and scope of visibility change. Still fairly complete given tool complexity.
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 coverage is low (33%) but description adds no parameter details. Only client_request_id has a schema description; deleted_reason and transaction_id lack context in schema and description.
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?
Description clearly states 'soft-delete an existing transaction by ID' and explains effect on normal spending summaries. Specific verb+resource, distinguishes from restore_transaction which is the undo operation.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Siblings like restore_transaction and undo_last_transaction exist but description doesn't differentiate usage contexts.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct with clear purposes. Potential confusion between get_report and get_summary or log_transaction and record_expense is mitigated by detailed descriptions explaining their specific use cases.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., delete_transaction, get_report, parse_expense_text), making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
With 13 tools covering CRUD operations, account management, and utility functions, the count is well-scoped for a personal expense tracking server without being excessive.
The tool surface covers essential expense lifecycle operations (create, read, update, delete, restore) and account settings, though a direct get_transaction by ID or bulk operations are missing but not critical.