breathehr_list_expense_claimsList expense claims (employee, total, state, approver) filtered by employee and state. GET /employee_expense_claims.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, from 1 (default 1). Pass the previous reply's next_page. | |
| state | No | Only claims in this state. | |
| per_page | No | Results per page, 1-100 (default 25). | |
| employee_id | No | Only this employee's claims. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 the returned field set and the filter capability, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result caps, or auth needs beyond what the schema shows.
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 and returned fields. No wasted words, and the endpoint reference is a compact addition.
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 read-only list tool, the description is minimally adequate: returned fields and filter dimensions are stated. But with no output schema and a sibling named breathehr_list_expenses, more disambiguation context is warranted.
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%, so the schema fully documents page, per_page, state, and employee_id. The description only restates that filtering is by employee and state, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema's baseline.
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 specific verb (List) and resource (expense claims), plus the fields returned and the API endpoint. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling breathehr_list_expenses, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus the closely-named sibling breathehr_list_expenses. The filtering behavior is mentioned but there is no context for choosing between alternatives or stating prerequisites.
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.