ExpenseBot

get_setup_status

Read-only

Read authoritative setup, known answers, next question and eligible actions for the current workspace. Ask only missing prerequisites; optional setup must not block a specific expense task. Unknown is not empty/complete. No client acting/writes.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_setup_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`scope`	No	Current actor role.
`states`	No	Authoritative account/personal_rules/checklist/expense readiness.
`status`	No	Read availability.
`success`	Yes	Read succeeded.
`handoffs`	No	Returned settings/personalRules/inbox/bank/clients links.
`revision`	No	Current scope-bound revision.
`decisions`	No	Saved checklist decisions.
`limitations`	No	Unknowns and restrictions.
`suggestions`	No	Eligible actions; unknown stays unknown.
`nextQuestion`	No	Next applicable question or null.
`personalRules`	No	Completion and saved preferences.
`personalLearning`	No	Learning revision, questions, proposals and lastChangeId.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: "Unknown is not empty/complete" discloses a state-model nuance an agent would otherwise get wrong, and "No client acting/writes" reinforces that this tool never mutates. It stops short of describing pagination or freshness/caching behavior.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the return payload and followed by caveats, with essentially no filler. The final fragment "No client acting/writes" is telegraphic enough to cost a little clarity, but nothing is wasted.

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 no parameters and an output schema present, the description need not document return shape. It covers what the tool reads, the semantics of the unknown state, and the guardrail against blocking on optional setup — everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% with additionalProperties false, leaving no ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence names a specific verb (Read) and enumerates exactly what is returned: authoritative setup, known answers, next question, and eligible actions for the current workspace. That is clearly distinguishable from the sibling complete_setup, though the description never names that sibling explicitly to sharpen the contrast.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

"Ask only missing prerequisites; optional setup must not block a specific expense task" gives useful behavioral guidance on how to consume the result, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus complete_setup or the various status siblings (get_scan_status, get_accounting_integration_status). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

All ExpenseBot tools Inspect

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.