restore_transactionRestore a previously deleted transaction by ID so it appears in spending summaries again.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the transaction will appear in spending summaries, but does not disclose what happens if the transaction is not deleted or already restored. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
A single sentence that is brief, direct, and contains no extraneous information. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the presence of output schema and annotations, the description is mostly complete. It clearly states the outcome. However, it could be enhanced by explicitly noting that the transaction must have been previously deleted for the operation to succeed.
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?
With 50% schema coverage, the description does not elaborate on either parameter. The client_request_id parameter has a schema description, but transaction_id lacks one in the schema and the description does not compensate by explaining its purpose beyond the implicit ID usage.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Restore', the resource 'transaction', and the effect 'appears in spending summaries again'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_transaction (opposite) and undo_last_transaction (different scope).
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?
The description implies use after a transaction has been deleted, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like undo_last_transaction, nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations.
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.