OpenMonetis MCP

Excluir anexo

delete_attachment

Destructive

Permanently deletes an attachment from OpenMonetis financial records; requires explicit confirmation to prevent accidental removal.

Instructions

Exclui definitivamente um anexo. Exige confirm: true.

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_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`confirm`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.3Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description need not restate that it is a write. It does add value by disclosing the confirmation gate ('Exige `confirm: true`'), a behavioral requirement absent from the annotations and not enforced by the schema's required list. It does not explain recovery, permissions, or failure modes, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the destructive scope is front-loaded before the confirmation requirement. Nothing is redundant or misplaced.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a destructive, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the confirm gate, but omits what the caller should expect on success or failure and gives no detail on the id argument. Adequate as a minimum, but thin given the destructive nature.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives meaningful semantics for one of two parameters (confirm must be true, implying a safety gate), but says nothing about the id parameter or its UUID format, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Exclui definitivamente um anexo'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling tools such as upload_attachment or get_attachment_download_url. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any sibling, but the resource specificity makes mis-selection unlikely.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., the download-url or upload tools), and no prerequisites or warnings about the operation being irreversible beyond the word 'definitivamente'. The agent must infer the usage context entirely.

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

Deploy Server