Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fiken-mcp

fiken-mcp

by gronnmann
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

fiken_delete_transaction

Destructive

Delete a transaction by marking it as deleted and automatically creating a reversing transaction to correct the accounting records.

Instructions

Marks a transaction as deleted and creates a reversing transaction

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": {
      "transactionId": "<transactionId>",
      "description": "<description>"
    },
    "name": "fiken_delete_transaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
descriptionYesReason for deletion (required by API)
transactionIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. Description adds the behavioral detail that a reversing transaction is created, providing useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not clarify the final state or reversibility.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy, front-loaded with key action. Efficient and clear.

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, the description is minimal. It lacks warnings, prerequisites, or clarification of the impact on related records. No differentiation from sibling delete tools.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 50% (description parameter has a description, transactionId does not). The tool description does not add extra meaning to the parameters, leaving transactionId ambiguous.

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?

Description clearly states it marks a transaction as deleted and creates a reversing transaction. However, it does not differentiate from sibling delete tools like fiken_delete_purchase or fiken_delete_sale, which might cause confusion.

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 versus alternatives such as delete_purchase or delete_sale. The description lacks context about appropriate scenarios.

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