Money Lover MCP Server

Delete Wallet

delete_wallet

Permanently remove a wallet and all associated financial data from the Money Lover system to maintain organized personal finance records.

Instructions

Permanently delete a wallet and all its 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": {
      "walletId": "<walletId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_wallet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`walletId`	Yes	Wallet identifier to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.3Apr 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'permanently delete,' which implies a destructive, irreversible action, but fails to detail consequences like data loss, authorization requirements, or error handling. This is insufficient 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 that directly states the tool's action and scope without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, 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 inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'all its data' entails, whether deletion affects related entities (e.g., transactions), or what the response looks like. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's full impact.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'walletId' documented as 'Wallet identifier to delete.' The description adds no additional parameter details beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 ('permanently delete') and the resource ('a wallet and all its data'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_category' or 'delete_transaction' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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, such as 'edit_wallet' for modifications or 'get_wallets' for viewing. It also lacks prerequisites, warnings about irreversible effects, or context about related operations, leaving usage decisions unclear.

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