yimu-mcp

save_transfer

save_transfer

Add or update a transfer in Yimu bookkeeping. Include amount, service charge, time, source/target accounts, received amount, bill, remark; use transferId to update.

Instructions

新增或更新转账（POST /transfer/addOrUpdateTransfer，upsert：带主键为更新）。entity 字段：transferId 主键；cost 金额；serviceCharge 手续费；time 时间；fromAssetId/toAssetId 转出/转入账户；toCost 到账金额；billId 关联账单；remark 备注

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": "save_transfer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`entity`	Yes	转账对象

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

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. It discloses the HTTP method (POST), the endpoint, and the upsert semantics. It does not describe side effects like whether existing records are overwritten, whether related bill/asset data changes, or error conditions, but the upsert note adds some transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and packed with useful field mappings. It is a bit dense but front-loaded with the main action and endpoint. The inline field list is efficient for a tool with a nested object parameter.

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 covers the main purpose and the entity fields, but given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, an agent might need more information about required vs optional entity fields and response behavior. The core callable behavior is covered reasonably.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the only parameter 'entity', but the schema only says '转账对象' (transfer object) with additionalProperties allowed. The description compensates by listing the key fields of entity (transferId, cost, serviceCharge, time, fromAssetId/toAssetId, toCost, billId, remark), which adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb ('新增或更新转账' = create or update transfer) and resource, and gives the endpoint. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'delete_transfer' or other save tools explicitly, though the meaning is understandable.

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 indicates an upsert behavior (带主键为更新 = with primary key means update), which implies when to use it for create vs update. It does not provide explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the upsert mechanism gives some usage context.

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