Skip to main content
Glama

business-expenses

Rebill expenses to an invoice

expense_to_invoice

Preview the unbilled billable expenses of one project as invoice_create line items (description, quantity, unit_price, tax_rate), grouped per currency. Read-only: nothing is marked rebilled here.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesISO date, inclusive
fromYesISO date, inclusive
projectYesProject or client to rebill
fx_ratesNoRate per source currency, meaning 1 unit of that currency = X units of target_currency, e.g. {"EUR": 1.08, "GBP": 1.27}. You supply the rate; nothing here fetches or guesses one. Omit it when the range holds several currencies and the response names the exact argument to pass
markup_percentNoPercent added to each net amount. Every line's unit_price is the NET amount and its tax_rate is the VAT rate recorded on the expense, so the invoice recomputes the same tax instead of charging it twice and the line total comes back to the receipt gross
assume_vat_rateNoSplit expenses that recorded NO VAT rate at this percent, flagged in the description. Only applied when you pass it here. An expense with no rate holds a GROSS amount and is otherwise rebilled as-is with tax_rate 0 plus a warning in its description, so a default tax rate applied on the invoice would tax that receipt a second time. A stored rate of 0 is a real rate (exempt), not a gap. The expense_settings default is never applied retroactively, because that would rewrite the tax meaning of receipts entered before it existed
target_currencyNoConvert every line into this currency and return ONE group, e.g. "USD". Needs fx_rates for each other currency present. Lines are otherwise grouped per currency, because one invoice carries one currency; each converted line carries "[converted from EUR 12.40 at 1.08]" in its description
include_rebilledNoInclude expenses already marked as rebilled, default false

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description claims 'Read-only: nothing is marked rebilled here,' but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, which signals the tool may modify state. This is a direct contradiction between the natural-language behavior and the structured hint, so the tool's behavioral claims cannot be trusted.

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?

Two sentences, both substantive: the first states the operation and output shape, the second states the key state-change guarantee. No filler, no restating of the title, and the most important information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description gives the return shape and grouping, and the parameter schema covers many edge cases, but this is a complex 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no explicit guidance on multi-currency ranges or next steps. The contradiction between the read-only claim and the annotations also makes the overview less dependable.

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 100%, and each parameter already has a rich individual description. The top-level description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 names a specific verb ('Preview') and a precise resource ('unbilled billable expenses of one project'), and it specifies the output shape ('invoice_create line items ... grouped per currency'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like expense_mark_rebilled and expense_list.

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?

The description implies this is for previewing and that nothing is marked rebilled, suggesting the actual marking happens elsewhere, but it never explicitly names a sibling like expense_mark_rebilled or states when not to use this tool. The usage context is present, but the guidance is left mostly to inference.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.