PocketLedger MCP

Log transaction

log_transaction

Idempotent

Create one personal expense transaction from explicit structured fields. Expense-only: do not use for income, salary deposits, account transfers, bank credential storage, budgets, investment advice, or calendar tasks.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	Yes
`note`	No	Optional short note to store with the transaction.
`amount`	Yes	Positive decimal amount encoded as a string. Must not include currency symbols or thousands separators.
`source`	No
`category`	Yes	Expense category name selected from list_categories when possible.
`currency`	Yes	ISO 4217 currency code, e.g. USD, EUR, GBP.
`merchant`	No	Merchant or payee name in plain text, preferably in English when the user asks to save in English.
`timezone`	Yes	IANA timezone used to interpret dates and relative words like today or yesterday, e.g. 'UTC'.
`subcategory`	No
`category_color`	No
`client_request_id`	No	Optional idempotency key. Omit for normal one-off calls.
`duplicate_confirmation`	No	Confirmation payload used only after a duplicate transaction warning.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint true and non-destructive nature. The description adds context by reaffirming the creation action and excluding other transaction types, but does not elaborate on side effects or permissions. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action and setting usage boundaries. No redundant or filler text. Front-loaded with key information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 params, nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, scope, and notable exceptions. It could add a brief note on idempotency but is adequate overall.

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 high (67%), with most parameters having descriptive schema comments. The description adds 'from explicit structured fields' but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('personal expense transaction'), and explicitly limits scope to expenses only, distinguishing it from siblings like record_expense or parse_expense_text. The negative list (do not use for income, etc.) further clarifies purpose.

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 clearly states when not to use the tool (income, transfers, etc.) and implies usage for creating expenses from structured fields. While it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, the negative list provides sufficient guidance.

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

All PocketLedger MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are mostly distinct with clear purposes. Potential confusion between get_report and get_summary or log_transaction and record_expense is mitigated by detailed descriptions explaining their specific use cases.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., delete_transaction, get_report, parse_expense_text), making the set predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

With 13 tools covering CRUD operations, account management, and utility functions, the count is well-scoped for a personal expense tracking server without being excessive.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers essential expense lifecycle operations (create, read, update, delete, restore) and account settings, though a direct get_transaction by ID or bulk operations are missing but not critical.

Resources

Need Help?