get_expensesList expense claims. Use when the user asks about expenses, expense claims, reimbursements, or receipts they have submitted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 50) | |
| status | No | Filter by status: pending, approved, rejected, reimbursed, all (default: all) | |
| company | No | Which company to read, by name or id, when the account has more than one (see list_companies). Leave it out to use the only company, or the default. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description contributes only trigger vocabulary and says nothing extra about ordering, pagination, or what a "claim" record contains.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource, with no filler. Minor redundancy in listing "expenses" and "expense claims" as separate trigger words, but it costs almost nothing.
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?
Rich annotations, fully described three-parameter schema, no output schema, and no nested objects — the description is sufficient to call the tool correctly. The one thing an agent still cannot resolve from the description is when to prefer it over get_expense_claims.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%: limit, status enum values, and the company/default-company rule are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List expense claims") that an agent can act on immediately. It does not distinguish the tool from the near-identical sibling get_expense_claims, which is a real ambiguity in this toolset.
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?
"Use when the user asks about expenses, expense claims, reimbursements, or receipts" gives a clear trigger context, but offers no exclusions and names no alternatives. With get_expense_claims sitting in the sibling list, the missing when-not guidance is a material gap.
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.