Lunch Money MCP Server

deleteAsset

Remove an asset from your Lunch Money financial records by specifying its unique ID. This action permanently deletes the asset data from your account.

Instructions

Delete an asset by ID

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": "deleteAsset"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jan 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but lacks details on permissions, reversibility, side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or error handling. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, confirmation), expected outcomes, or error scenarios, leaving the agent with insufficient information for safe invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description specifies that deletion is 'by ID', which adds meaning beyond the schema's generic 'id' parameter (schema coverage is 0%). However, it doesn't clarify the ID format (e.g., integer as per schema) or scope (e.g., asset-specific). With 1 parameter and low schema coverage, this provides adequate but not comprehensive semantic context.

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 the action ('Delete') and the resource ('an asset by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'getAssets' (read) and 'updateAsset' (modify), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other delete operations (e.g., 'deleteBudget').

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., asset must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete if in use), or comparisons to siblings like 'deleteTransaction' or 'updateAsset' for different operations.

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