finance-reconcile-mcp

Ignore Finding

setup_ignore_finding

Idempotent

Suppress a specific reconciliation finding by recording its fingerprint locally, removing it from future audit views without changing Firefly III or SimpleFIN data.

Instructions

Add a finding fingerprint to the local ignored-findings file. This never mutates Firefly III or SimpleFIN.

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": {
      "fingerprint": "<fingerprint>",
      "type": "<type>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "setup_ignore_finding"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type`	Yes
`reason`	Yes
`fingerprint`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds that it never mutates Firefly III or SimpleFIN, clarifying the scope of side effects. However, it does not explain what happens if the fingerprint already exists (e.g., overwrite or ignore), which would enhance transparency.

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?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. The description is front-loaded with the core action and includes a clarifying statement about side effects. Every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the three required parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It does not explain what a 'finding fingerprint' is, how to obtain one, or the effect of the tool in the broader workflow. However, sibling tools like setup_list_ignored_findings provide context.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'finding fingerprint' but does not explain the 'type' or 'reason' parameters. The enum values for type are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description should clarify the role of each parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Add') and the resource ('finding fingerprint to the local ignored-findings file'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like setup_unignore_finding by focusing on adding rather than removing.

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for ignoring findings, but lacks explicit guidance on conditions or exclusions. The note about not mutating external systems provides some context but not usage advice.

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