Skip to main content
Glama

expense_create

Logs a new expense — amount_cents must be integer CENTS (a decimal string via amount also works, and category resolves to a category_id by name). A same-amount, same-UTC-day duplicate for the same user is refused as CONFLICT unless you resend identically with force: true. Status is honor-or-refuse: admin/owner creators land 'approved' by default (or may request it explicitly), everyone else always starts 'draft'. NEXT: expense_submit sends a draft into the approval queue.

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_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
costNoAlias of amount — same decimal money STRING parsing.
dateNoYYYY-MM-DD (omitted = today).
forceNoResend an identical expense_create with force: true to save it despite a same-amount, same-UTC-day duplicate match; omitted or false leaves the duplicate check refusing with CONFLICT.
notesNo
totalNoAlias of amount — same decimal money STRING parsing.
amountNoDecimal money STRING ("23.50") — the platform converts; integer CENTS ($23.50 → 2350) via amount_cents is also accepted.
statusNo
vendorNo
categoryNoCategory by name or slug, e.g. 'food'.
currencyNo
ocr_jsonNo
tax_typeNo
tags_jsonNo
approved_atNo
approved_byNo
category_idNo
descriptionNoAlias of notes — used only when notes is not also supplied.
receipt_keyNo
rejected_atNo
amount_centsNo
expense_dateNo
submitted_atNo
tax_rate_bpsNo
category_nameNoAlias of category — resolves to category_id by name or slug.
recurrence_idNo
reimbursed_atNo
subtotal_centsNo
rejection_reasonNo
tax_amount_centsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses important behavior: same-amount/same-UTC-day duplicates are refused as CONFLICT unless resent with `force: true`, and status defaults are honor-or-refuse based on whether the creator is admin/owner. This is substantial operational context for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded, dense, and structured as purpose → money/category notes → duplicate rule → status rule → next step. Every sentence adds actionable information with no filler.

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 complex create tool, the description covers the critical behavioral rules and the likely next step, which is enough to call it correctly for common cases. Gaps remain around many optional fields and the return shape, especially since there is no output schema.

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 description adds useful meaning for key fields: `amount_cents` must be integer cents, `amount` is a decimal string alias, `category` resolves by name, and `force` overrides duplicate refusal. However, with 29 parameters and only 28% schema description coverage, many fields are left undocumented or only self-described by the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: "Logs a new expense." It also distinguishes the creation step from the follow-up workflow by naming `expense_submit` as the next action for drafts.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear usage context for creating an expense and explains the duplicate-conflict path with `force: true`. It also points to `expense_submit`, but does not explicitly compare against update/read/list siblings or state when not to use this tool.

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