PineBill

Add expense

create_expense

Create a new expense record. Requires a title, amount, and date. Optionally link to a customer, invoice, or project using their IDs from the respective list tools.

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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "amount": "<amount>",
      "date": "<date>"
    },
    "name": "create_expense"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	Yes	Expense date as ISO string (defaults to today)
`notes`	No	Additional notes
`title`	Yes	Expense title/description
`amount`	Yes	Expense amount
`vendor`	No	Vendor or merchant name
`category`	No	Expense category (default: OTHER)
`currency`	No	Currency code like USD, EUR (defaults to USD)
`invoiceId`	No	Invoice ID to link this expense to (from list_invoices)
`projectId`	No	Project ID to link this expense to
`customerId`	No	Customer ID to link this expense to (from list_customers)
`paymentMethod`	No	Payment method used (e.g. Credit Card, Cash, Bank Transfer)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds that certain fields are required and that records can be linked to customers, invoices, or projects, but it does not describe side effects, permissions, duplicate handling, or the returned result.

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 two tight sentences, front-loads the core action, and contains no unnecessary wording. Every sentence contributes something about required fields or optional linking.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential required fields and linking options, while annotations carry the safety profile. It leaves gaps around return values, permissions, and behavioral edge cases that would help an agent invoke it confidently.

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%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters. The description restates the required fields and mentions using IDs from list tools, which adds minor provenance context but mostly duplicates structured schema information.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Create a new expense record." It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from related creation tools such as create_invoice or create_customer beyond the resource name.

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?

The description states the required fields and optional linking behavior, which implies when the tool is useful. However, it does not give explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus alternatives like update_expense or create_invoice.

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

All PineBill tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?