create_expenseCrée une charge d'exploitation pour un bien LMNP. Le montant est en euros. Catégories disponibles : property_tax, insurance, energy, maintenance, supplies, platform_fees, accounting, telecom, travel, cleaning, other.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| amount | Yes | ||
| category | Yes | ||
| tva_rate | No | ||
| description | Yes | ||
| property_id | Yes | ||
| expense_date | Yes | ||
| is_dedicated | No | ||
| recurring_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says the tool 'creates' an expense, while the annotation indicates destructiveHint: true. This is a direct contradiction, as creation is not inherently destructive. The description does not disclose any destructive behavior or side effects, and the conflicting annotation makes the tool's behavior unclear.
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 concise, using one sentence plus a list of categories. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no filler. The only minor issue is the French wording potentially causing translation overhead, but it is still efficient.
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?
For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and a confusing annotation, the description is incomplete. It does not mention required fields, return values, prerequisites, or potential side effects beyond creation. The category list and amount unit are helpful, but the overall context is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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 description adds meaning for two parameters: amount is 'en euros' and category lists valid values. However, with 0% schema coverage and 9 parameters total, it leaves the other seven (property_id, expense_date, description, notes, tva_rate, is_dedicated, recurring_type) unexplained. The partial info does not sufficiently compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 clearly states the action: 'Crée une charge d'exploitation pour un bien LMNP' (creates an operating expense for an LMNP property). The verb 'crée' and the resource 'charge d'exploitation' are specific, and the context 'bien LMNP' distinguishes it from related tools like create_income or create_property.
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 provides context (for an LMNP property) and lists categories, implying when the tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using update_expense for modifications or creating income via create_income. The guidance 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The set contains two almost identical comparison tools: compare_micro_bic and get_simulation both compute micro-BIC vs réel and recommend the best regime. This creates a direct selection conflict. Other tools are mostly distinct, but this overlap is significant.
Tool names follow a verb_noun pattern consistently, with list_properties, create_income, delete_expense, etc. Minor deviations exist such as compare_micro_bic (no standard noun) and the plural/singular mismatch between delete_document and export_documents, but these are easily understood.
With 44 tools, the surface is very large for an MCP server. While the LMNP domain is broad, the number exceeds the typical range and will be hard for agents to navigate efficiently. Some functions could be consolidated (e.g., get_simulation absorbs compare_micro_bic).
The set covers CRUD for properties, incomes, expenses, furniture, and works, plus documents and fiscal computations. However, there is no create/update/delete for loans (only compute and get), no delete_property, and no update for property components. These gaps could block common workflows.