Skip to main content
Glama

expense_budget_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List your expense_budget rows (newest first).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "expense_budget_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoPage size 1-200. Omit BOTH limit and cursor for the legacy bare-array first page of 200; pass either to get { items, next_cursor, limit } instead.
cursorNoOpaque page cursor — pass a previous response's next_cursor verbatim. null next_cursor means no further pages.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful ordering context ('newest first') but does not mention pagination, scoping, or the legacy bare-array response behavior that the schema describes.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The verb, resource, ownership scope, and sort order all arrive immediately.

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?

For a simple paginated list tool, the description plus the rich schema and annotations provide nearly everything needed to invoke it correctly. It could explicitly route single-row lookups to expense_budget_read, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and sibling names.

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 explains limit, cursor, and the legacy first-page behavior. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('expense_budget rows') plus ordering ('newest first'), so the agent knows this is a collection-listing operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling expense_budget_read, but the plural 'rows' makes the list-vs-single distinction reasonably clear.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer that this is the right tool when it needs multiple budget rows. The description does not explicitly say when to use this instead of expense_budget_read or how it relates to expense_list, leaving some ambiguity.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources