Skip to main content
Glama

ExpenseBot

by io.github.TotesMagotes
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_recent_activity

Read-only

Show what the user (or their AI assistants) has recently done in ExpenseBot via this MCP server: which tools were called, when, with what arguments, and whether they succeeded. This is a log of assistant TOOL CALLS, not the processing history of a document. Useful for questions like 'what did I do this week' or 'which tools has my assistant run', and to give the user transparency into AI-assisted actions. Returns the most recent N entries from the audit log (default 20, max 100).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
actionIdNoOptional: filter to a single tool/action name
sinceDaysNoOnly show actions from the last N days (default 7)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYes
actionsYes
successYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "actions": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "properties": {
+          "actionId": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "durationMs": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "success": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "timestamp": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "count": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "success",
+    "count",
+    "actions"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  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. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive nature, and the description adds valuable context about what the log contains (tool calls, arguments, timestamps, success/failure). It also states the default limit and maximum, which are not in annotations. Since annotations cover safety, the description provides additional behavioral detail without contradicting them.

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 three sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by a clarifying distinction and then usage context and parameters. Every sentence earns its place, and the length is proportional to the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return format is covered. The description covers purpose, use cases, data scope, and parameter defaults. It does not explicitly mention pagination or error cases, but for a read-only audit log with a limit parameter, those are not critical. It is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 67% (actionId and sinceDays have descriptions, limit does not). The description compensates for limit by stating 'default 20, max 100', which is not in the schema. However, it does not add beyond the schema for actionId or sinceDays, so overall it meets baseline without enriching beyond what is already clear. A 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 a specific verb ('Show') and resource (recent activity log) and explicitly distinguishes it from document processing history. It names the underlying content (tool calls, arguments, success/failure) and directly differentiates from the sibling 'trace_document' by clarifying it is not processing history. This is unambiguous.

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?

The description gives concrete use cases: 'what did I do this week' and 'which tools has my assistant run', and states it provides transparency into AI-assisted actions. It also clarifies it is not for document processing history, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool. It could be stronger by pointing to specific siblings, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources