PocketLedger MCP

Delete transaction

delete_transaction

DestructiveIdempotent

Soft-delete an existing transaction by ID so it no longer appears in normal spending summaries.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "transaction_id": "<transaction_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_transaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`deleted_reason`	No
`transaction_id`	Yes
`client_request_id`	No	Optional idempotency key. Omit for normal one-off calls.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJul 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Parameters2/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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.

All PocketLedger MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?