budget_history

What a school budget line was in each year, AT ONE STAGE. The stage argument is required and singular on purpose: proposed, settled and actual are three different documents about the same year, and a growth rate measured from an actual to a budget is partly growth and partly the step between them. That mistake put a special education escalator 1.5 points too high here and was invisible until somebody asked how the number was derived. Note also that a budget line is NET — what the town must raise after grants, fees and state aid — so a line can rise because a grant ended rather than because anything cost more.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "label": "<label>",
      "stage": "<stage>"
    },
    "name": "budget_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`label`	Yes	Part of the line name, e.g. "paraprofessional"
`stage`	Yes	One stage. Never compare across stages.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so impressively: it reveals that lines are net of grants/fees/state aid, that stage values are separate documents, and that cross-stage comparisons produce misleading growth rates, including a concrete example of the harm. This goes well beyond a generic 'returns history' statement.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is longer than average, but every sentence carries substantive content—purpose, stage caveat, and net definition—and the core purpose is front-loaded. The real-world example is slightly expansive, but it earns its place by illustrating a non-obvious failure mode; a 5 would require shedding that extra length.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it covers the data semantics, the key misuse trap, and the net definition. It doesn't describe the exact return shape, but there is no output schema and the tool is simple enough that this is a modest gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining why stage is singular and why mixing stages corrupts derived metrics, which is more than the enum alone conveys.

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 opening sentence states precisely what the tool returns—a school budget line's value in each year—and immediately attaches the critical constraint 'AT ONE STAGE.' This makes it easy for an agent to understand the tool's resource and scope and to distinguish it from generic siblings like query or list_datasets.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly instructs that stage is required and singular, warns against cross-stage comparisons, and explains why comparing actual to budget is a category error. It doesn't name sibling tools or give explicit when-to-use/not-to-use alternatives, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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

All archive tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.