OpenMonetis MCP

Excluir regra do inbox

delete_inbox_rule

Destructive

Deletes an inbox rule permanently using its ID and current version. Requires confirmation and version validation to prevent conflicts or accidental removal.

Instructions

Exclui uma regra do inbox. A API exige a versão atual do registro em expectedVersion. 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>",
      "expectedVersion": "<expectedVersion>"
    },
    "name": "delete_inbox_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.3Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the concurrency gate on `expectedVersion` and the mandatory `confirm: true`, both of which an agent would otherwise miss. It stops short of stating what happens on a version mismatch or that deletion is irreversible.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the two hard preconditions. Nothing redundant and nothing buried.

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 delete with no output schema and no per-parameter schema docs, the definition covers the two blocking prerequisites but omits consequences (irreversibility, version-conflict behavior) and where to obtain `expectedVersion`. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 carry the burden. It explains `expectedVersion` (current version of the record) and that `confirm` must be true, but never clarifies `id` beyond the schema's uuid format, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.

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?

"Exclui uma regra do inbox" gives a specific verb (delete) and resource (inbox rule), so the agent knows exactly what it removes. It does not, however, contrast itself with siblings such as list_inbox_rules (where versions come from) or create_inbox_rule, so a 5 is not earned.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name and by the stated preconditions (`expectedVersion`, `confirm: true`). There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to list_inbox_rules for retrieving a version, and no note that this cannot be undone.

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

Deploy Server