yimu-mcp

delete_lend

delete_lend

Delete a lending record from Yimu bookkeeping ledgers by providing its unique lendId and the associated userId. Removes the specified loan entry permanently.

Instructions

删除借贷（POST /lend/deleteLend）。entity 需携带主键字段（lendId）与 userId。

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": {
      "entity": "<entity>"
    },
    "name": "delete_lend"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`entity`	Yes	借贷对象（含主键 lendId）

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

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 identifies a destructive mutation and references userId, but it does not state whether deletion is irreversible, whether related records are affected, what permissions are needed, or what the response looks like.

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 short sentences deliver the endpoint, the object type, and the required fields with no filler. The essential action is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter delete operation, the description is minimal but adequate: it names the endpoint and the required entity fields. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the absence of response/error or side-effect information leaves the full call context incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema describes entity only as a lend object containing lendId, while the description adds meaningful information by requiring that entity also include userId. This requirement is not present in the schema description, so the description genuinely supplements the parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('删除借贷' / delete lend) and includes the endpoint POST /lend/deleteLend. This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling delete tools such as delete_reimbursement or delete_bill.

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 intended use is implied by the verb and resource, and the description states a prerequisite by requiring entity to include lendId and userId. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions, so usage context is inferable rather than explicit.

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