Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
monarch-mcp2

monarch-mcp2

by erikrubstein
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Goals Delete Goal

goals_delete_goal
Destructive

Delete a financial goal and remove its associated data from Monarch Money by providing the goal ID.

Instructions

Delete goal. This may delete, clear, reset, or otherwise remove data.

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": {
      "goal_id": "<goal_id>"
    },
    "name": "goals_delete_goal"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsNoOptional dotted output field paths to return, such as ['id', 'merchant.name', 'category.name'].
goal_idYes
output_modeNoOutput shape to return. Use summary for compact CLI-style defaults, full for complete structured data without raw, and raw for complete structured data including raw payloads.summary
session_pathNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description states it is destructive, matching annotations (destructiveHint:true). However, it is vague about what exactly happens (e.g., cascading effects on goal events). Minimal additional value beyond annotations.

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 concise at one sentence. While not structured with bullet points or sections, it is front-loaded with the action. Could include more key info without losing conciseness.

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?

For a destructive tool with no output schema, the description lacks essential context: permanence, what happens to associated data (e.g., goal events), and how to verify deletion. Incomplete for safe agent use.

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 50% schema description coverage, the tool description adds no parameter explanations. The schema describes fields and output_mode, but not goal_id or session_path. Description fails to compensate for the 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 clearly states 'Delete goal,' indicating the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like goals_archive_goal by focusing on deletion, but could be more specific about what deletion entails beyond 'may delete, clear, reset, or otherwise remove data.'

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 vs alternatives like archiving or the related goals_delete_goal_event. Given destructiveHint:true, it would be helpful to note that deletion is irreversible and suggest archiving as a safer alternative.

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