OpenMonetis MCP

Excluir transação

delete_transaction

Destructive

Permanently removes a transaction by ID. Fetches details for a dry-run preview (name, amount, date) and requires confirm: true to execute the deletion.

Instructions

Exclui definitivamente uma transação. A ferramenta busca a transação antes de excluir para mostrar nome, valor e data no dry-run. Exige confirm: true para executar.

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_transaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	ID da transação.
`confirm`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.3Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

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 safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value by disclosing the two-phase flow (pre-fetch, dry-run preview, explicit confirmation gate) and the permanence of the deletion. It does not describe error behavior for a missing or already-deleted transaction.

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 destructive action, then the preview mechanism, then the confirmation requirement. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no filler.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers permanence, the preview step, and the confirmation gate, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around the dry-run response contents and failure cases for nonexistent IDs.

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 coverage is 50%: `id` is documented in the schema, while `confirm` is undocumented there and the description supplies its meaning ('Exige confirm: true para executar'), which is genuine added value. However, it does not explain the format of `id` or what omitting `confirm` returns beyond a dry-run, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Exclui definitivamente uma transação'), which is unambiguous and clearly a destructive mutation, distinctly different from create_transaction or update_transaction. It does not explicitly name or contrast against sibling deletion tools, but the name-plus-verb combination leaves little ambiguity.

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?

It states the operating condition clearly: a call without confirmation yields a dry-run preview (fetching name, value and date), and `confirm: true` is required to actually execute. That effectively tells the agent how to sequence the call. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance, such as when to prefer cancel/void semantics over permanent deletion.

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

Deploy Server