Remove a classification, reverting the transaction to unclassified.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| npub | No | Required. Your Nostr public key (npub1...) for credit billing. | |
| dpop_token | No | ||
| session_id | Yes | ||
| transaction_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description effectively discloses the primary behavioral effect: removing a classification reverts the transaction to unclassified. This is sufficient for a simple deletion action, though it does not mention if the operation is reversible or if multiple classifications can be removed at once.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the primary action and effect. However, it could be slightly expanded to include usage context without becoming verbose.
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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally viable. It states what the tool does but lacks guidance on when to use it or how it differs from similar tools, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (only npub has a description). The tool description adds no information about any of the four parameters, leaving session_id and transaction_id entirely undocumented despite being required. This is inadequate for low coverage.
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 clearly states the action 'Remove a classification' and the effect 'reverting the transaction to unclassified', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like taxsort_save_classifications or taxsort_reset_classifications that have different purposes.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like taxsort_reset_classifications or taxsort_clear_transactions. The description does not mention any prerequisites or context for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes and thorough descriptions. However, the sheer number (84) and some similarly named tools (e.g., check_balance vs check_authority_balance) could cause minor confusion for an agent.
All tools share the 'taxsort_' prefix, but the naming pattern is inconsistent: some use verb_noun (check_balance), while others use noun_noun (account_statement) or other structures. This mixed convention reduces predictability.
84 tools is excessive for typical MCP server coherence. While the domain is broad, many tools seem administrative (e.g., get_anthropic_key) and could be consolidated. The high count likely overwhelms agents.
The tool set covers the core tax classification workflow (import, classify, summarize) plus auxiliary systems (payments, credentials, coupons, notarization). Minor gaps exist (e.g., no CSV export), but overall coverage is comprehensive.