Get a short-lived direct PDF download for one exact authorized expense report, plus the exact highlighted in-app report link. Use the in-app report for CSV, XLSX, receipt ZIP (when available), comments, invoicing, and other visually reviewed actions. Use list_reports first to find the reportId.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reportId | Yes | Report ID from list_reports |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output 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: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations already indicating readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds meaningful context beyond structured metadata: the download is short-lived, it applies to one authorized report, and the in-app link is the path for certain output formats. This behavior is stated without contradicting the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, each delivering independent high-value info: the core output, where formats other than PDF belong, and the mandatory preliminary lookup. Nothing is verbose or redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a single required parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, this description adequately equips an agent to call the tool: it names the input, the return shape (PDF download and in-app link), and the correct alternative path for other file types. It could go to 5 with explicit response field names like reportUrl or pdfUrl.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents reportId with 100% coverage as 'Report ID from list_reports'. The description reinforces the parameter's origin with 'Use list_reports first to find the reportId' and adds scoping nuance — the report must be 'exact' and 'authorized' — both of which clarify intended values beyond the schema text.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a precise verb and resource: it gets a 'short-lived direct PDF download' for an 'exact authorized expense report' plus a highlighted in-app report link. The deliverables are specific enough to differentiate it from siblings like get_report_details and get_spreadsheet_url, and the sentence structure grounds the tool clearly in its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs the agent to use the in-app report link for CSV, XLSX, receipt ZIP, comments, invoicing, and other visually reviewed actions, and it names the prerequisite call: 'Use list_reports first to find the reportId.' It covers usage and context well, though it does not explicitly compare to alternative get_* sibling tools beyond the implied scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.