yimu-mcp

delete_transfer

delete_transfer

Delete a transfer record from your Yimu bookkeeping ledger by providing the transfer ID and user ID. Removes unwanted or erroneous transfers to keep financial records accurate.

Instructions

删除转账（POST /transfer/deleteTransfer）。entity 需携带主键字段（transferId）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_transfer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`entity`	Yes	转账对象（含主键 transferId）

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a delete action and required fields, but does not state irreversibility, cascading effects, authorization needs, or error behavior, leaving the destructive nature under-specified.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the operation and resource, then supplies the endpoint and required entity fields. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

The description provides the operation, endpoint, and required input fields, which is enough to attempt invocation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits response/error semantics, post-conditions, and authentication context, so completeness is only adequate.

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 schemas only says 'entity' is an object containing transferId, but the description adds that entity must also carry userId, which is not present in the schema. This is valuable for a free-form nested object, although it does not specify value formats or types.

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 clearly states the operation ('删除转账' / delete transfer), the REST endpoint, and the resource being acted on. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like save_transfer or other delete_* tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions required fields but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or cases where a sibling tool should be used instead.

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