yimu-mcp

delete_reimbursement

delete_reimbursement

Delete a reimbursement record by providing the reimbursement ID and user ID. Removes the specified expense entry from the Yimu ledger.

Instructions

删除报销（POST /reimbursement/deleteReimbursement）。entity 需携带主键字段（reimbursementId）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_reimbursement"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`entity`	Yes	报销对象（含主键 reimbursementId）

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly communicates that this is a delete operation via POST, but it does not mention permanence, soft-delete behavior, consequences, or error handling. Some transparency is present, but not full.

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, purposeful sentences: the first names the operation and endpoint, the second states the essential payload constraint. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a tool with one nested parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the action, endpoint, and required fields well. It is slightly thin on postconditions/return behavior, but the essential calling information is present.

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 only describes entity as an object containing reimbursementId, while the description adds that userId is also required. This is meaningful additional guidance for constructing the nested entity payload, going beyond the schema's sparse description.

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 states a specific action ('删除报销' / delete reimbursement) and the exact HTTP endpoint POST /reimbursement/deleteReimbursement. This clearly identifies the resource and operation, and it is distinguishable from siblings like save_reimbursement and delete_refund.

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 gives a clear precondition for use: entity must carry reimbursementId and userId. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the intent and required payload are unambiguous.

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