Firefly III MCP Server

Delete Firefly III Tag

firefly_delete_tag

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a tag from Firefly III and remove it from all associated transactions to organize your financial data.

Instructions

Delete a tag. It will be removed from all transactions that use it.

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": {
      "tag": "<tag>"
    },
    "name": "firefly_delete_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tag`	Yes	Tag name to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Apr 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial behavioral context: the tag is 'removed from all transactions that use it' rather than deleting those transactions or failing due to references. This cascade/unlink behavior is not inferable from annotations alone.

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 sentences with zero waste: first states the action, second states the critical side effect. Information is 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.

Completeness4/5

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

Well-covered for its complexity: cascade behavior documented, parameter defined, destructive nature annotated. Minor gap: does not mention idempotency behavior (though annotated) or what constitutes success when the tag doesn't exist.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with the single 'tag' parameter fully documented. The description does not add syntax details or examples beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.

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?

Specific verb 'Delete' plus resource 'tag' clearly stated. The second sentence distinguishes this from sibling delete operations by clarifying the specific cascade behavior (removal from transactions), which differs from how delete_account or delete_budget might behave.

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?

Implies destructive impact on transactions but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives (e.g., when to use update_tag for renaming instead of delete). No explicit prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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