Skip to main content
Glama
freeagent-mcp-server

freeagent-mcp-server

by samaxbytez

freeagent_delete_bank_account

Destructive

Deletes a bank account from FreeAgent by its bank account ID, enabling removal of outdated or incorrect banking records.

Instructions

Delete a bank account from FreeAgent

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": {
      "bank_account_id": "<bank_account_id>"
    },
    "name": "freeagent_delete_bank_account"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bank_account_idYesThe ID of the bank account to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is structured data, not description content. The description adds nothing beyond the annotations: it does not say whether linked bank transactions are affected, whether deletion is reversible, or what permissions are needed.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording or filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why behavioral and usage context is missing.

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

Completeness2/5

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

This is a destructive mutation with no output schema and only one parameter, so the description is the only place to explain consequences, and it does not. An agent calling it has no textual warning that deletion is permanent or what happens to associated transactions.

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?

The single parameter bank_account_id has 100% schema description coverage ('The ID of the bank account to delete') with a pattern constraint, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no information beyond that, which is the expected baseline for full coverage.

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 specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a bank account from FreeAgent'), which is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling freeagent_update_bank_account or the delete verbs on other resources, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus updating or listing bank accounts, and no prerequisites or caution about irreversibility. The agent is left to infer that deletion is permanent.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools