Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
expense-tracker-mcp

expense-tracker-mcp

by AzeemWaqarRao
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

delete_expense

Remove a logged expense from your tracker. Soft delete allows restoring it later with undo_last.

Instructions

Delete an expense. Soft delete — undo_last() restores it.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_expense"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that the delete is a soft delete and that undo_last() will restore the expense, which is valuable non-obvious behavior. It does not describe other effects like permissions or error conditions, but for this simple operation the key behavior is covered.

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 two short sentences with the primary action first and no filler. The second sentence adds critical behavioral information, so every word earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides the essential behavioral nuance (soft delete) and recovery path. It lacks sibling differentiation from delete_recurring and does not mention edge cases, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The single parameter 'id' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description's phrase 'Delete an expense' implies that 'id' identifies which expense to delete, adding some meaning, but it offers no additional detail about how to obtain the id or any constraints beyond the schema's integer type.

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 states a specific verb and resource, 'Delete an expense', which clearly identifies the operation. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like delete_recurring, but the resource (expense) is unambiguous.

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?

The use case for this tool is implied by the description: use it to delete an expense. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool rather than alternatives such as delete_recurring, or any exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools