Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
zoho-bookkeeper-mcp

zoho-bookkeeper-mcp

by bu5hm4nn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

delete_bill_attachment

Remove an attachment from a bill, deleting the file association and cleaning up the bill record.

Instructions

Delete attachment from a bill. Removes the file association from the bill.

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_bill_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
organization_idNoZoho org ID (uses ZOHO_ORGANIZATION_ID env var if not provided)
bill_idYesBill ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral detail beyond 'delete' and 'removes association', lacking clarity on side effects (e.g., whether the file itself is deleted) or required permissions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short but contains redundancy ('Delete attachment' and 'removes file association' are essentially the same). While concise, it could be more efficient with a single focused sentence.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. However, it omits details like the requirement for the bill to exist or error states, which would improve completeness.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters, so the description does not need to add semantics. It does not provide additional context beyond what the schema already offers.

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 clearly states 'Delete attachment from a bill' and 'Removes the file association', providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like delete_expense_receipt or delete_invoice_attachment, though the tool name itself distinguishes them.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions. It only states the action without 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