Skip to main content
Glama
shahlaukik

Money Manager MCP Server

by shahlaukik

asset_delete

Delete assets from your financial portfolio in the Money Manager MCP Server to maintain accurate financial records and remove outdated or incorrect entries.

Instructions

Removes an asset.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
assetIdYesAsset ID to delete

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that executes the asset_delete tool: validates input using AssetDeleteInputSchema and calls the Money Manager API /removeAsset endpoint to delete the specified asset.
    /**
     * Handler for asset_delete tool
     * Removes an asset
     */
    export async function handleAssetDelete(
      httpClient: HttpClient,
      input: unknown,
    ): Promise<AssetOperationResponse> {
      const validated = AssetDeleteInputSchema.parse(input);
    
      const response = await httpClient.post<ApiOperationResponse>("/removeAsset", {
        assetId: validated.assetId,
      });
    
      return {
        success: response.success !== false && response.result !== "fail",
        assetId: validated.assetId,
        message: response.message,
      };
    }
  • Zod input schema for asset_delete tool, requiring assetId string.
    /**
     * Input schema for asset_delete tool
     */
    export const AssetDeleteInputSchema = z.object({
      assetId: AssetIdSchema,
    });
    
    export type AssetDeleteInput = z.infer<typeof AssetDeleteInputSchema>;
  • src/index.ts:275-285 (registration)
    MCP tool registration in TOOL_DEFINITIONS array, defining name, description, and input schema for the asset_delete tool.
    {
      name: "asset_delete",
      description: "Removes an asset.",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object" as const,
        properties: {
          assetId: { type: "string", description: "Asset ID to delete" },
        },
        required: ["assetId"],
      },
    },
  • Internal registration of the handleAssetDelete handler in the toolHandlers map.
    asset_list: handleAssetList,
    asset_create: handleAssetCreate,
    asset_update: handleAssetUpdate,
    asset_delete: handleAssetDelete,
  • Registration of AssetDeleteInputSchema in the ToolSchemas registry.
    // Assets
    asset_list: AssetListInputSchema,
    asset_create: AssetCreateInputSchema,
    asset_update: AssetUpdateInputSchema,
    asset_delete: AssetDeleteInputSchema,
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Removes' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions). This is inadequate for a destructive operation.

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?

The description is extremely concise ('Removes an asset.') with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and gets straight to the point, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion (e.g., confirmation message, error handling), nor does it address behavioral aspects like permissions or irreversibility, leaving critical gaps for agent understanding.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'assetId' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Removes') and resource ('an asset'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'transaction_delete' or specify what type of asset is being deleted (e.g., financial asset vs. digital asset).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'asset_update' or 'transaction_delete'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., asset must exist), consequences, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/shahlaukik/money-manager-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server