Firefly III MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that linked transactions will have their budget cleared rather than being deleted. This describes the cascade behavior that annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint) do not cover. Does not mention idempotent nature, but annotations cover this.

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

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

Two sentences with zero waste: first establishes the operation, second provides critical side-effect information. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a single-parameter destructive operation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple 1-parameter schema with complete annotations, the description adequately covers the essential behavioral nuance (transaction side effects). No output schema exists, but for a delete operation, the description sufficiently prepares the agent for the operation's scope.

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

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

With 100% schema description coverage ('Budget ID to delete'), the schema fully documents the parameter. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses specific verb 'Delete' with resource 'budget', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like firefly_delete_account or firefly_update_budget. The first sentence immediately establishes the tool's function.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides implied usage guidance by disclosing side effects (transactions will have budget cleared), helping users understand consequences. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like firefly_update_budget or warnings about irreversibility.

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