yimu-mcp

delete_bill

delete_bill

Delete a specific bill from your bookkeeping ledger by providing its bill ID, removing unwanted or incorrect entries.

Instructions

删除账单（POST /bill/deleteBill，按 billId 删除）。

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": {
      "bill_id": "<bill_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_bill"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bill_id`	Yes	账单 ID
`user_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the endpoint and deletion-by-billId mechanism, but does not state whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what downstream effects occur, or what permissions are required.

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 one short sentence with the action and endpoint front-loaded. There is no filler and every part adds useful information.

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?

For a simple delete-by-id tool, the required parameter and endpoint are enough to attempt a call. However, destructive behavior is not elaborated and user_id remains unclear, so the description is adequate but not complete.

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?

The schema already documents bill_id as '账单 ID', and the description only restates this as 'billId' with a slight naming mismatch. The optional user_id parameter is left entirely unexplained, so the 50% schema coverage gap is not compensated.

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 states a clear action ('删除账单'), the target resource, and the API endpoint, so an agent can tell it deletes a bill. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many delete_* siblings, but the resource 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 Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not mention any alternative tools. The only usage signal is the verb itself, so usage context remains implicit.

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