Skip to main content
Glama

Hundo

propose_delete_transaction

Destructive

Propose deleting an existing income or expense transaction. Returns a proposal id; to record it, call the confirm_proposal tool with the returned proposalId after the user approves (there is no UI button or proposal card to click in this context). Look the target up with the read-query tool first and pass its id. Transfers, buys and sells can't be deleted here — tell the user to delete those on the Transactions page. Neither can IOUs, which are transfers to a virtual receivable/payable account — tell the user to manage those on the IOUs page. The preview states the full effect — relay it to the user before they confirm.

MCP note: this tool only CREATES a pending proposal; nothing is recorded until confirm_proposal is called.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
transactionIdYesId of the transaction to delete. Look it up with the read-query tool (filtering by description/date/amount/etc.) before calling. Must be an income or expense: transfers, buys and sells belong on the Transactions page, and IOUs on the IOUs page.
editsProposalIdNoId of an existing pending delete proposal to update in place. Pass this when the user retargets a delete you previously proposed (e.g. 'actually delete the other one'). Look up current ids with listPendingProposals if you're unsure. Omit when proposing something new.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses the critical two-phase behavior: this tool only creates a pending proposal and nothing is recorded until confirm_proposal is called. It also reveals there is no UI button/card in this context and instructs the agent to relay the preview before confirmation, which goes well beyond the annotations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: scope, required post-step, exclusions, caller guidance, and the critical MCP note are all packed in with no filler. The core workflow is front-loaded in the first two sentences.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and destructive annotations, the description fully covers the proposal lifecycle, return value, next step, exclusions, lookup requirement, preview handling, and environmental caveat. An agent has everything needed to call and complete the flow correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces the transactionId lookup workflow but does not add materially new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the high-coverage baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Propose deleting an existing income or expense transaction.' It also distinguishes itself from confirm_proposal (the recording step) and from proposing transfers, buys, sells, and IOUs, making its scope unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly names sibling alternatives and the conditions that select them: use confirm_proposal to record, direct transfers/buys/sells to the Transactions page, IOUs to the IOUs page, and use read-query first to obtain the target id. No ambiguity remains about when to call this tool.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources