Beancount.io

Unlink Bank Connection

unlinkBankConnection

Destructive

Sever a linked bank connection. Linking a new bank happens in a browser through the bank's own widget, not here. dry_run reports what would be removed.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dryRun`	No	Alias of dry_run, as REST and GraphQL spell it.
`itemId`	No	The linked bank's id.
`ledger`	No	Target ledger as owner/name. Required for an unpinned credential; defaults to the credential's ledger restriction.
`dry_run`	No	Validate and report what would change, without changing anything.
`item_id`	No	Alias of itemId.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`error`	No
`result`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / dryRun

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alias of dry_run, as REST and GraphQL spell it.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / itemId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The linked bank's id.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / item_id / description

Previous value: -"The linked bank's id (item_id)."New value: +"Alias of itemId."

removedInput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "item_id"
-]
```

First observedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as destructive, open-world, and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds that linking is out of scope and that dry_run reports what would be removed, but it does not explain reversibility, auth requirements, or exactly what data is severed.

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 three short sentences and front-loads the core action. The linking context is useful, while the dry_run sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema. Overall it is efficient but not maximally tight.

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 destructive annotation, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description supplies the key workflow context that linking is elsewhere and that dry_run is available. It could still say more about consequences and the role of itemId/ledger, but it is broadly complete for invocation.

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 itemId, item_id, ledger, dryRun, and dry_run. The description only mentions dry_run and does not add meaning beyond the schema for the identifier, ledger targeting, or alias parameters. This matches the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: "Sever a linked bank connection." It also clarifies that new bank linking happens elsewhere, which helps distinguish this from related bank workflows. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as refreshBankConnection or listBankConnections.

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 gives a clear usage boundary by stating that linking a new bank happens in a browser through the bank's widget, not here. It also notes the dry_run preview behavior. It does not state explicit prerequisites, such as needing itemId or how to choose between unlink and refresh.

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

All Beancount.io 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.