Skip to main content
Glama

ExpenseBot

by io.github.TotesMagotes

add_cash_expense

Add an expense without a receipt, or record money a client provided in advance for expenses. Writes directly to the user's expense spreadsheet after confirmation. For an ordinary expense, call list_categories first and provide a configured Expense Account. For a client advance, set isClientAdvance=true and clientName; ExpenseBot reuses or creates the canonical client group, applies Cash advance received, and stores the amount as a negative expense. Use this only for money supplied by a client before related spending, never for vendor refunds, reimbursements, earned fees, retainers, or generic deposits. Use the Manual expense link from get_spreadsheet_url instead when the user needs a reviewed form for multiple entries, credits/refunds, tax or tip breakdowns, per diem, or incomplete details.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taxNoTax amount
tipNoTip amount
cityNoCity/location
dateYesExpense date (YYYY-MM-DD)
notesNoNotes or description
totalYesPositive amount paid or received. ExpenseBot stores a client advance as negative.
categoryNoA configured Expense Account returned by list_categories. Do not invent a category.
currencyNoCurrency code (default: USD)
merchantNoMerchant/vendor name for an ordinary expense. Not needed for a client advance; ExpenseBot derives it from clientName.
subtotalNoSubtotal before tax
clientNameNoClient name for a client advance, in ordinary language. ExpenseBot resolves the canonical Client – Name group.
isClientAdvanceNoTrue only when a client supplied money in advance for expenses. Requires clientName and does not require category.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "description": "Standard ExpenseBot tool result envelope. `message` is the human-readable summary the AI cites; `data` is the structured payload (totals, breakdowns, ids, etc.). On failure, `success` is false and `error` carries a code/message/hint triple.",
-  "properties": {
-    "data": {
-      "additionalProperties": true,
-      "description": "Structured payload. Shape varies per tool — common keys: total, breakdown, comparison, sampleMeta, ids, expenseId, reportId, signupUrl, results.",
-      "type": "object"
-    },
-    "error": {
-      "additionalProperties": true,
-      "description": "Present only when success === false.",
-      "properties": {
-        "code": {
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        "hint": {
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        "message": {
-          "type": "string"
-        }
-      },
-      "type": "object"
-    },
-    "message": {
-      "description": "Human-readable result text. Always present on success; prefer rendering this verbatim before any further reasoning.",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "sampleMeta": {
-      "additionalProperties": true,
-      "description": "Set when the underlying dataset was truncated. isTruncated=true means the agent saw a sample of `sampleCount` of `totalCount` rows; aggregate totals are still accurate.",
-      "properties": {
-        "isTruncated": {
-          "type": "boolean"
-        },
-        "sampleCount": {
-          "type": "integer"
-        },
-        "totalCount": {
-          "type": "integer"
-        }
-      },
-      "type": "object"
-    },
-    "success": {
-      "description": "False on tool errors; check before reading `data`.",
-      "type": "boolean"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the direct side effect ('writes directly to the user's expense spreadsheet after confirmation'), the negative-expense representation, and the canonical client-group reuse/creation behavior. It stops short of explaining what 'confirmation' actually entails, but adds meaningful behavioral context well beyond the minimal annotation set.

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?

The description is long (~180 words) but every sentence carries unique information: mode distinction, side effect, preconditions, exclusions, and the alternate route. It front-loads the primary purpose and is logically organized, though the paragraph density is high enough that the key disambiguation could have been slightly tightened.

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 a 12-parameter tool with two distinct call patterns, no output schema, and a very large sibling list, the description is exceptionally complete: it covers preconditions, exclusions, alternative routes, and client-advance specifics. It does not describe the return value or what the agent should expect after a successful call, and the 'after confirmation' flow remains ambiguous, since there is no output-schema fallback to cover these.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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 each parameter. The description adds inter-parameter wiring that the schema cannot: category is only required for the ordinary-expense path, isClientAdvance=true requires clientName and ignores category, and merchant is derived from clientName for advances. This conditional semantics is genuinely additional value beyond 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-resource pair ('Add an expense without a receipt') and immediately distinguishes the second mode ('record money a client provided in advance'). It explicitly scopes the tool and even names what it is not (never vendor refunds, reimbursements, earned fees, retainers, generic deposits), making sibling disambiguation easy.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance for both modes, an explicit precondition ('call list_categories first and provide a configured Expense Account'), a hard list of exclusions, and a named alternative (Manual expense link from get_spreadsheet_url) with the specific conditions that should trigger it. Nothing is left to inference.

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

All ExpenseBot toolsInspect
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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are explicitly scoped, but several analytics/retrieval tools overlap in purpose, such as get_spending_summary vs get_deep_analytics vs get_monthly_books_review, and generic search vs search_expenses vs search_knowledge. The detailed descriptions help, but an agent still has to carefully choose between near-equivalent options like correct_expenses vs update_expense and the three add_income variants.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names consistently use lower_snake_case with a recognizable verb prefix: get_*, list_*, add_*, create_*, check_*, scan_*, search_*, and whatif_*. Minor exceptions like fetch and search are still terse retrieval verbs rather than a different naming style, so the overall pattern is predictable.

Tool Count1/5

With 59 tools, this exceeds the 50+ threshold for an extreme tool count and creates a heavy selection surface for an agent. Even though ExpenseBot covers many subdomains, many get_/list_/add_ variants could be consolidated into fewer parameterized tools. The count undermines the otherwise clear naming structure.

Completeness3/5

The surface is strong for creating, reading, and updating expenses, reports, invoices, and Gmail scans, but there are notable lifecycle gaps: no delete/void tools for expenses, income, reports, or invoices, and no update tool for income. Several descriptions explicitly redirect unsupported edits to the web app, confirming that the assistant cannot complete those workflows directly.

Resources