category_rulesReplace the merchant-to-category rules, or call with no rules to list them. Returns the stored rule list. The rules are applied by expense_add whenever a call gives no category of its own.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rules | No | The FULL rule list; it replaces the stored one, so include the rules you want to keep. Omit to list the current rules instead |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
All annotations are false, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it can both replace and list, and that it returns the stored rule list. It also notes integration with expense_add. However, it does not explicitly state that replacing overwrites the entire rule list (though 'Replace' implies it) or mention any side effects on existing data.
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?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. No redundancy; every sentence adds value (action, return, and context).
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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the action, return, and the reason rules exist (used by expense_add). Details on matching logic are in the schema, so nothing critical is missing.
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%, with the rules parameter well-documented ('The FULL rule list; it replaces the stored one...'). The tool description adds context about the dual behavior but does not extend parameter semantics beyond the schema. 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?
States a clear action: replace the merchant-to-category rules or list them. It also mentions the rules are applied by expense_add, giving context. Does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but no other tool manages rules, so purpose is distinct.
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 dual action (replace or list) implies usage, and the mention of expense_add provides context on when rules matter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions.
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.