Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
rocketmatter-mcp

rocketmatter-mcp

by RosenAdvertising
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

delete_ap_bill

Delete an accounts payable bill from Rocketmatter. Provide the bill ID to remove incorrect or unwanted bills.

Instructions

[Not in LCS /v1] Delete an AP bill. Fails loudly.

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": {
      "bill_id": "<bill_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_ap_bill"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bill_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions 'fails loudly' for errors. It does not disclose whether deletion is irreversible, cascading effects, or permissions required. For a destructive operation, more transparency is needed.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence) with no fluff. However, it could include more details without becoming verbose, such as required permissions or return value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has an output schema (not shown), the description lacks completeness about what happens on success (e.g., returns deleted bill or void). No context about authorization or side effects, making it insufficient for confident agent invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter (bill_id), the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. No format, examples, or constraints are given, leaving the agent to guess the input format.

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?

The name 'delete_ap_bill' combined with the description 'Delete an AP bill. Fails loudly.' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (AP bill), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_invoice or delete_client.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_invoice). Missing prerequisites like bill existence or status requirements. The phrase 'fails loudly' hints at error behavior but does not help an agent decide context.

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