Skip to main content
Glama

ExpenseBot

by io.github.TotesMagotes

get_accounting_push_status

Read-only

Read the authoritative posting and reconciliation status for one ExpenseBot report at an accounting destination. Use after a timeout or uncertain response before considering any retry. Returns status, submission time, posting mode, posted receipt count, any public error, and whether reconciliation is required. Never re-post a completed report or a report marked needs_reconciliation; show that state to the owner instead. This tool is read-only and owner-account only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
providerYesAccounting destination provider used for the prior posting attempt.
reportIdYesExact ExpenseBot report ID from the prior proposal or posting attempt.

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. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / provider / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "zoho_books"
-]New value: +[
+  "zoho_books",
+  "quickbooks",
+  "xero",
+  "wave",
+  "freeagent"
+]
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / provider / description
      Added value: +"Accounting destination provider used for the prior posting attempt."
    • addedInput schema / properties / reportId / description
      Added value: +"Exact ExpenseBot report ID from the prior proposal or posting attempt."
  4. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds context beyond annotations by stating it returns specific fields (status, submission time, posting mode, posted receipt count, any public error, reconciliation required) and warns against re-posting. It also explicitly states 'This tool is read-only' which reinforces annotations. While it doesn't disclose rate limits or pagination, for a simple status read the added context is sufficient. 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a clear statement of purpose, a usage trigger, a warning, and a read-only note. It front-loads the primary function and then adds actionable guidance. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. No filler or repetition.

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?

With only 2 parameters, no output schema, and annotations already covering safety, the description provides everything an agent needs: it states what the tool returns (enumerated fields), when to use it, and what not to do. It also mentions the owner-account restriction. There is no missing information that would prevent correct invocation or interpretation of results. The description fully compensates for the lack of an output schema by listing the return contents.

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%, so both parameters are fully described in the schema. The description adds minor context: 'provider' is defined as the 'Accounting destination provider used for the prior posting attempt' (schema already says this) and 'reportId' as 'Exact ExpenseBot report ID from the prior proposal or posting attempt' (schema already says this). The description does not introduce new syntax or format details beyond the schema. Since the schema carries the semantic weight, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Read the authoritative posting and reconciliation status for one ExpenseBot report at an accounting destination.' It specifies the exact verb (read), the resource (status of a report), and the specific context (accounting destination). It differentiates itself from siblings like send_report_to_accounting and get_accounting_integration_status by focusing on status checking rather than sending or integration status.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use after a timeout or uncertain response before considering any retry.' It also provides a clear exclusion: 'Never re-post a completed report or a report marked needs_reconciliation; show that state to the owner instead.' This gives an agent direct instructions on when to invoke and when not to, including alternative behavior. Additionally, it notes 'owner-account only' which is a scope constraint.

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