list_groupsYour expense groups (trips, flats, events) with members and, per currency, total spent, each member's net position and the payments that would settle everyone up.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group | No | Name or id; omit for all |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the returned data structure (members, per-currency totals, net positions, settlement payments), which goes beyond the schema. No contradictions or missing behavioral warnings are apparent.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the resource ('Your expense groups') and packs all essential details without redundancy. Every clause adds relevant information, and there is no fluff or unnecessary wording.
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 with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and from whose perspective. It does not mention sorting, pagination, or group filtering nuances, but these are minor for this simple operation. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden on the description for return-value details.
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 single optional parameter 'group' is fully documented in the schema with a clear description ('Name or id; omit for all'), and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb (list) and clearly identifies the resource (expense groups), then enumerates the returned content: members, per-currency totals, net positions, and settlement payments. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_accounts or list_transfers, and clarifies it is not just a basic group listing.
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 implies its purpose—listing the user's expense groups—but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives like people_balances or settle_group. There are no when-not-to-use conditions or references to sibling tools, so usage is inferred 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.