yimu-mcp

delete_tag

delete_tag

Delete a tag from Yimu bookkeeping ledgers. Provide the tag's ID (tagId) and your userId to remove it.

Instructions

删除标签（POST /tag/deleteTag）。entity 需携带主键字段（tagId）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_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`entity`	Yes	标签对象（含主键 tagId）

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a delete operation and names required fields, but does not say whether the action is permanent, cascading, or authorized, nor what the response/return behavior is.

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 compact sentences: the first states the action and endpoint, the second states the required fields. No filler or redundancy.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool, and the description covers the essential input requirements. However, because there is no output schema and no annotations, a deletion tool should also provide some information about success/failure semantics or side effects.

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 at a high level, but the description adds real semantic value by explicitly stating entity must carry tagId and userId. This is more than the schema's minimal object description implies.

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 explicitly names the operation (delete tag), the resource, and the endpoint POST /tag/deleteTag. It is clear and distinct from a hypothetical save_tag, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from a sibling tool.

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 gives a concrete prerequisite: entity must contain tagId and userId. It implies the tool is for deleting tags, but it does not compare against siblings such as save_tag or state when not to use it.

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