Skip to main content
Glama
ohneben

Buchhaltungsbutler MCP

by ohneben
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Cost Locations: delete cost location

cost_locations_delete
DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently delete a cost location that is no longer needed. Use this action to remove obsolete cost centers; it cannot be undone.

Instructions

🔴 DESTRUCTIVE · deletes data: Deletes or cancels a record. Confirm with the user before calling. Receipt deletes are restorable; cost-location deletes are not. Cancelling a posting deletes it if it is not yet fixed, otherwise it books a reversal posting.

delete cost location

Delete a cost location.

Use to remove a cost centre that is no longer needed.

Permanent. Unlike a deleted receipt there is no restore endpoint, so confirm with the user before calling.

Endpoint: POST /cost-locations/delete

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesThe cost location code

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageNoblank
successYesSuccess boolean

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.2
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "message": {
+      "description": "blank",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "description": "Success boolean",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "success"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / api_key
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Optional. The BB customer api_key to act on. Defaults to the BB_API_KEY configured on the server — only set this to target a different customer.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  3. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds significant context beyond that: the irreversibility ('Permanent. Unlike a deleted receipt there is no restore endpoint'), the requirement to confirm with the user, and a distinction between receipt deletes (restorable) and cost-location deletes (not). This goes beyond what annotations provide and helps the agent understand the consequences. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is somewhat verbose and repetitive. It states 'Delete a cost location' and then 'Use to remove a cost centre' which is essentially the same. The destructive warning at the beginning is duplicated in the body. The emoji and bold formatting add visual noise. However, it is structured in short paragraphs and includes the endpoint, which is useful. It could be trimmed but is not excessively long.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (has output schema: true), the description doesn't need to explain return values. The description covers the core aspects: the action, when to use it, the irreversibility, and the confirmation requirement. It also mentions the HTTP endpoint. It lacks any mention of preconditions (e.g., whether the cost location must exist or have no dependencies), but for a simple delete tool this is adequate. Overall it is fairly complete.

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 schema has one parameter 'code' with a clear description ('The cost location code'). The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't mention format, examples, or related fields, but it's not necessary given the schema covers it.

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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'cost location' (also referred to as 'cost centre'). It distinguishes from siblings like cost_locations_list, cost_locations_create, and cost_locations_update by specifying the action. The first sentence is explicit and unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context: 'Use to remove a cost centre that is no longer needed.' It also gives an important usage guideline: confirm with the user before calling, because the delete is permanent and has no restore endpoint. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to decide. It could have mentioned alternatives (e.g., update if the cost centre is still needed) but that is implied.

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