Skip to main content
Glama

ExpenseBot

by io.github.TotesMagotes

create_report

Create an expense report from a clear date, client, project, trip, category, or merchant request. Tags are ExpenseBot's grouping layer for clients, projects, project codes, and trips; call list_tags when the user's intended group is unclear. For requests such as 'all expenses in August except personal', set excludePersonal=true; this excludes both the Personal tag and Personal expense category, matching ExpenseBot's Report Wizard. Returns the report summary, exact report link, Bill Client link, applied filters, and a prefilled Report Wizard fallback for criteria that need visual review. Reports scoped to an existing client/project/trip group include matching expenses that are not already assigned to another ordinary report. Can optionally share with recipients. If no unreported matches remain, create no duplicate report and explain that the expenses are already in Reports. Terminal results also include role-appropriate accountingHandoffUrls from the server capability matrix and the existing reviewed file-export workflow. Use only the exact destination the user requested; the link opens the reviewed app flow and does not mean an export occurred. Complete the requested report directly; do not call check_compliance, get_report_details, or tax/deductibility tools before or after it unless the user explicitly asks for that separate analysis.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNoExisting ExpenseBot groups to include, such as a client, project, project code, property, or trip. Use list_tags first when uncertain.
titleNoCustom report title
dateRangeNoTime period filter. Use exactly one variant — pick the shape that matches the user's phrasing.
shareWithNoEmail addresses to share the report with
categoriesNoOptional configured expense categories to include in the report.
excludedTagsNoExisting ExpenseBot groups to exclude from the report.
recipientRoleNoAccess for every shareWith recipient. Use reviewer for one-report review, comments, approval, or change requests. Use accountant only when the user explicitly wants ongoing report management and accounting-software access.reviewer
excludePersonalNoExclude expenses whose Tag is Personal or whose Expense Category is Personal.
excludedCategoriesNoExpense categories to exclude from the report.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / recipientRole
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "reviewer",
+  "description": "Access for every shareWith recipient. Use reviewer for one-report review, comments, approval, or change requests. Use accountant only when the user explicitly wants ongoing report management and accounting-software access.",
+  "enum": [
+    "reviewer",
+    "accountant"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. 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
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / categories / description
      Added value: +"Optional configured expense categories to include in the report."
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only carry bare flags (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers: it discloses no-duplicate behavior when no unreported matches remain, the scoping rule about expenses not already assigned to another ordinary report, the fact that the link opens a reviewed flow rather than performing an export, and the accountingHandoffUrls inclusion. This is far beyond what annotations provide.

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 (roughly a dozen sentences), but nearly every clause carries operational weight — duplicate prevention, link semantics, scoping rules, exclusions, return values. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and flows logically from what→how→returns→edge-case→exclusions. Slightly dense, but no filler sentences.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 9-parameter tool with zero required parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it documents return contents (summary, report link, Bill Client link, applied filters, Report Wizard fallback), handles edge cases (already-reported expenses, ambiguous groups), and covers share/recipient semantics. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value on top: it explains tags as 'ExpenseBot's grouping layer for clients, projects, project codes, and trips,' clarifies that excludePersonal=true removes both the Personal tag and Personal category in line with Report Wizard behavior, and frames the date/category criteria in user-request language. A modest but real increment over 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 — 'Create an expense report from a clear date, client, project, trip, category, or merchant request' — and enumerates the exact scoping dimensions. It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming which tools to avoid (check_compliance, get_report_details, tax/deductibility tools) and distinguishes itself from export_report ('does not mean an export occurred').

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and actionable: 'call list_tags when the user's intended group is unclear' names the alternative and the triggering condition, and 'do not call check_compliance, get_report_details, or tax/deductibility tools before or after it unless the user explicitly asks' gives a hard when-not. The excludePersonal example also teaches when to set a specific parameter.

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