Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
drebedengi-mcp

drebedengi-mcp

by hawk911
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Удалить операцию

delete_transaction
Destructive

Deletes an accounting entry by ID, including both halves of transfers or currency exchanges; use to remove an operation permanently.

Instructions

Удалить операцию по id. Для перевода/обмена удаляются обе половины. Необратимо.

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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real context beyond that: transfers and currency exchanges delete both halves, which is a non-obvious cascade effect an agent must anticipate, plus an explicit irreversibility warning.

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 with the action first, the cascade caveat second, and the irreversibility warning last. No filler and nothing buried.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the essentials are covered: what is deleted, the paired-half side effect, and that it cannot be undone. Only the source of the id and error behavior on an unknown id are left implicit.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load; it says deletion is by id, implying the single integer is a transaction identifier. That is minimal clarification and does not say where the id comes from or whether it must reference an existing transaction.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: delete a transaction by id, which clearly separates it from read siblings like get_transactions and mutation sibling update_transaction. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative, but the operation is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the verb and the irreversibility warning, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of contacting update_transaction for edits, and no stated preconditions such as verifying the id first.

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