Skip to main content
Glama

expense_recurrence_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List your expense_recurrence 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_recurrence_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

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the sort order; it says nothing about how rows are scoped (tenant/user) or what the pagination envelope means, which the schema does carry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence with the ordering detail front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though nearly too terse for a list endpoint.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description never indicates what a recurrence row contains or how the two response shapes differ; the agent must open the schema to learn the legacy-vs-envelope behavior.

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 coverage is 100% and the limit/cursor descriptions are unusually precise, including the legacy bare-array behavior. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("List your expense_recurrence rows") plus the ordering guarantee "newest first". This distinguishes it from expense_recurrence_read, though it does not explicitly contrast with expense_recurrence_read or expense_list.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus expense_recurrence_read (single row) or expense_list (expenses rather than recurrence schedules). The agent must infer the choice from the name alone.

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