mcp-freshbooks

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific resources and actions in the FreshBooks domain. Tools like create_client, get_client, update_client, and list_clients form a coherent set around clients, with no overlap or ambiguity between different resource types (e.g., invoices, expenses, time entries). The descriptions reinforce distinct operations.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, using snake_case uniformly. All CRUD operations use create_, get_, update_, delete_, or list_ prefixes, and domain-specific actions like send_invoice and freshbooks_authenticate maintain clear, predictable naming. No deviations or mixed conventions are present.
Tool Count3/5
With 25 tools, the count is borderline high for a single server, potentially feeling heavy. However, given FreshBooks' broad domain (clients, invoices, expenses, projects, time tracking, authentication, reports), the tools cover many aspects, so it's not extreme but may overwhelm agents with its scope.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for core FreshBooks workflows, including CRUD operations for clients, invoices, expenses, projects, and time entries, plus authentication, reporting, and actions like sending invoices. Minor gaps exist, such as no update/delete for expenses or projects, but agents can work around these with the available tools.
Average 2.9/5 across 25 of 25 tools scored. Lowest: 1.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, how results are returned, what format they're in, or any rate limits. The description provides zero behavioral context beyond the basic action implied by the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two words, but this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. While it's front-loaded (there's only one phrase), it fails to provide necessary information. The brevity comes at the cost of being unhelpful rather than efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a listing tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. While the output schema might describe return values, the description should still explain what's being listed, any important constraints, and how to use the pagination parameters. The current description provides insufficient context for effective tool selection and use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters (page, per_page), the description provides no information about parameters whatsoever. The schema shows pagination parameters, but the description doesn't mention pagination, filtering, sorting, or any other aspects of how the listing works. It fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List projects' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful context. It doesn't specify what kind of projects, from what system, or what scope is included. While the verb 'List' is clear, the resource 'projects' is too generic without additional qualifiers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools (list_clients, list_estimates, list_expenses, etc.) that presumably list different resource types, but the description offers no differentiation or context about when this specific listing tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List estimates' reveals nothing about permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (despite pagination parameters in the schema), response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description fails to compensate for the lack of annotations.
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?
The description is maximally concise—a single two-word phrase. While this leads to under-specification in other dimensions, it contains zero wasted words and is front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, even if more content is needed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a list operation with pagination), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'estimates' are, how results are structured, or behavioral constraints. The output schema existence means return values might be documented elsewhere, but the description should still provide context for invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameter titles ('Page', 'Per Page') are generic and unhelpful. The description adds no parameter information whatsoever—it doesn't mention pagination, default values, or how parameters affect results. With two undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema's deficiencies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List estimates' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling list tools like 'list_clients' or 'list_invoices' beyond the resource type. While it identifies the verb ('List') and resource ('estimates'), it lacks any detail about scope, filtering, or what constitutes an 'estimate' in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_report' that might provide similar or overlapping functionality, nor does it specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Users must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but fails to disclose any behavioral traits. It doesn't indicate if this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (e.g., paginated), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is too minimal to provide any useful behavioral context.
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?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, but this is due to under-specification rather than effective brevity. However, based on the scoring criteria for this dimension, it's front-loaded with zero wasted words, earning full points for conciseness despite lacking substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (listing operation with pagination parameters) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (which reduces the need to explain return values), the description doesn't cover essential context like authentication, usage scenarios, or parameter meanings, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'page' and 'per_page' mean in this context, how pagination works, default behaviors, or any other parameter semantics. The description fails to address the two undocumented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List time entries' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'list_' tools (like list_clients, list_projects) beyond the resource name, nor does it clarify what 'time entries' represent in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (like authentication), context for listing time entries, or how this differs from other list operations (e.g., filtering capabilities or relation to create_time_entry).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a client ID). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Create a new client.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, but as a standalone statement, it's efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a write operation with 6 parameters, 1 required), no annotations, and schema coverage of 0%, the description is insufficient. While an output schema exists (which might cover return values), the description lacks details on behavior, parameters, and usage context, making it incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions no parameters at all, failing to explain what 'email', 'first_name', etc., represent or their significance. With 6 parameters (1 required), this leaves critical information missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new client' clearly states the action (create) and resource (client), but it's quite basic and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_estimate' or 'create_invoice' beyond the resource name. It's not tautological but lacks specificity about what constitutes a client in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_client' or 'get_client', nor does it mention prerequisites such as authentication. It's a standalone statement with no contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create an estimate' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens upon success/failure. The invoice comparison adds minimal context.
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 brief and front-loaded with the main action. However, the second sentence about lines format, while concise, could be more integrated or informative to earn a perfect score.
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?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It states the tool's purpose but lacks details on parameters, behavior, and usage context, leaving gaps for a mutation tool with multiple parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'Lines format same as invoices' for the 'lines' parameter, ignoring 'customer_id', 'currency_code', and 'notes'. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain parameter purposes or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Create an estimate') but is vague about what an estimate entails in this context. It adds a comparison to invoices for lines format, which provides some context, but doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like create_invoice or explain the resource's purpose beyond its name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_invoice or create_client. The mention of 'Lines format same as invoices' implies a relationship but doesn't specify when an estimate is appropriate over an invoice or other creation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates something (implying mutation) but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens upon success. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic 'create' action.
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 brief and to the point with two sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and follows with parameter details. However, the second sentence could be structured more clearly as it mixes parameter explanations without proper formatting.
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?
For a creation tool with 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is incomplete. It covers only 2 of 7 parameters and provides no behavioral context. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it should better document parameters and usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides only titles with no descriptions. The description mentions two parameters (project_type and billing_method) and provides their possible values, but ignores the other 5 parameters (title, client_id, description, budget, due_date). This partial coverage leaves most parameters undocumented and doesn't adequately compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool creates a project, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_client' or 'create_estimate' beyond the resource name. The additional details about project_type and billing_method provide some specificity but don't fully differentiate the tool's purpose from other creation tools in the server.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing a client_id), when this tool is appropriate versus other creation tools, or any contextual constraints. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions optional search functionality but doesn't address pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a 'client' in this context. The description is minimal and leaves important behavioral aspects undocumented.
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 extremely concise with just two sentences. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and adds one additional detail. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be argued it's too brief given the lack of annotations and low schema coverage.
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?
Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and relatively simple parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a list operation with pagination and search capabilities, more context about behavior and usage would be helpful. The description meets basic requirements but leaves gaps.
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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'optional search by name or organization' which explains the purpose of the 'search' parameter but doesn't address 'page' or 'per_page' parameters at all. It adds some value for one parameter but leaves two completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose ('List clients') which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'get_client' or explain what differentiates listing from getting a specific client. The description is functional but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to use 'list_clients' versus 'get_client' or other sibling tools. The optional search parameter is mentioned but doesn't constitute usage guidance for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation ('Update'), but doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error handling. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is extremely concise—two short sentences with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently adds a key constraint, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 2 parameters, nested objects, and no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and a constraint, but lacks details on permissions, field specifics, or error cases that would be helpful for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'writable client fields' for the 'updates' parameter, adding some meaning beyond the schema's generic object type, but doesn't clarify what fields are writable or provide examples. The 'client_id' parameter is not explained at all, leaving gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Update a client') and resource ('client'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it's vague about what constitutes 'writable client fields' and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_invoice' or 'get_client' beyond the resource name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing client ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'create_client' or 'list_clients', leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'list' returns. It's minimal and lacks operational context.
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?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, 'List all payments,' which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
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?
Given low complexity, 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the pagination behavior hinted by parameters or what the output contains, though the output schema may cover return values. It's minimally adequate but with clear gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Parameters 'page' and 'per_page' are undocumented in the description, though their presence implies pagination. Baseline is 3 as the schema provides structure, but the description fails to explain parameter roles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all payments' states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('payments'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_invoice' or other list tools. It lacks specificity about what 'all' means in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_invoice' for specific payment details or 'list_invoices' for related resources. The description offers no context about prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output contains. The phrase 'writable invoice fields' hints at constraints but is vague.
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 very concise—two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Update an invoice') and follows with parameter guidance. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating purpose from parameter details.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with nested objects) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects or error handling. The presence of an output schema mitigates this slightly, as return values are documented elsewhere, but the description should still address usage context and parameter meaning more thoroughly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal semantics: it clarifies that 'updates' is a dict of writable fields, but doesn't explain what 'invoice_id' is, what fields are writable, their formats, or constraints. For a tool with 2 parameters and nested objects, this is insufficient compensation for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('invoice'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_invoice' and 'delete_invoice' by specifying it modifies existing invoices. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'update_client' or other update tools beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing invoice), exclusions (e.g., what fields cannot be updated), or comparisons with related tools like 'send_invoice' or 'delete_invoice'. The agent must infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation, implying it's a write/mutation tool, but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. The format hints for amount and date are useful but don't cover broader behavioral traits like error handling or side effects.
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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The two format examples are directly relevant to parameter usage. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from parameter notes).
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?
Given this is a mutation tool with 8 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema (which reduces need to describe return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and two parameter formats but misses behavioral context, usage guidelines, and documentation for most parameters. The output schema helps but doesn't fully compensate for the gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides format guidance for 'amount' (string like '150.00') and 'date' (YYYY-MM-DD), which adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't mention the other 6 parameters (category_id, staff_id, vendor, notes, currency_code, client_id), leaving most parameters undocumented in both schema and description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new expense') and resource ('expense'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_expense' or 'list_expenses' by specifying creation rather than retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_client' or 'create_invoice' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing valid category_id or staff_id), doesn't specify when this is appropriate versus other expense-related tools like 'get_expense' or 'list_expenses', and offers no exclusion criteria or contextual boundaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the creation action but doesn't describe permissions needed, whether the invoice becomes immediately payable, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the output contains. The example format is helpful but doesn't constitute comprehensive behavioral transparency for a creation tool.
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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one providing a concrete example. The example is front-loaded and directly relevant. No wasted words, though the JSON formatting could be more readable. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information.
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?
Given that there's an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), no annotations, and 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the most complex parameter (lines) with an example but leaves others unexplained. For a creation tool with multiple parameters, this represents a significant gap in completeness despite the output schema.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a detailed example for the 'lines' parameter structure, which is valuable semantic information not in the schema. However, it doesn't explain the other 5 parameters (customer_id, due_offset_days, currency_code, notes, po_number) at all. The partial compensation earns a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new invoice') and provides a concrete example of the required data structure. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_invoice' or 'send_invoice' by specifying creation rather than modification or communication. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_estimate' which might have similar structure.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_estimate' or 'create_client'. The description provides no context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing customer), appropriate scenarios, or when other tools might be more suitable. It simply states what the tool does without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Record a payment,' implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions needed, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or what the response contains. The format hints (e.g., 'Date as YYYY-MM-DD') are useful but insufficient for a mutation tool.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently provides key details in a single sentence. It avoids redundancy, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating format hints from the purpose statement) for optimal clarity.
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?
Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values), the description's main gaps are in usage guidelines and behavioral transparency for a mutation tool. It covers basic parameter semantics but lacks context on when and how to use the tool effectively, making it minimally adequate but incomplete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by explaining 'Amount as string' and 'Date as YYYY-MM-DD,' and lists payment types, which clarifies some parameters beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't cover all parameters (e.g., 'invoice_id,' 'note,' 'currency_code'), leaving gaps in documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Record a payment') and resource ('against an invoice'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'list_payments' or 'send_invoice', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., invoice must exist), exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'list_payments' or 'update_invoice', leaving the agent with minimal context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions format requirements for 'started_at' but doesn't address critical aspects like authentication needs, error conditions, whether creation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate entries, or what the output contains. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 appropriately concise with two sentences that get straight to the point. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides the most critical parameter formatting information. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.
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?
Given that an output schema exists (which should document return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, for a creation tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description provides only minimal context about two parameters and misses behavioral transparency aspects. It's minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps.
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?
The description adds minimal parameter semantics - it specifies the ISO8601 format for 'started_at' and clarifies 'duration_seconds' is in seconds. With 0% schema description coverage and 6 parameters, this provides some value but doesn't compensate for the majority of undocumented parameters (client_id, project_id, note, billable) that remain unexplained in both schema and description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a time entry') and resource ('time entry'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'list_time_entries' beyond the obvious create vs. list distinction, missing an opportunity to clarify when to use each.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_time_entries' or how it relates to other time-tracking operations. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be invoked in context of the available sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions report types and date formats but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the output contains, or any rate limits. The description is insufficient for a tool with three parameters and an output schema.
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 brief and front-loaded with essential information in two sentences. It efficiently lists report types and date format without unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. It covers basic purpose and parameter hints but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema may handle return values, but the description doesn't compensate for missing annotations or fully explain parameter semantics.
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?
The description adds some meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It specifies valid report types and date format, clarifying the purpose of report_type and the format for start_date and end_date. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or default behaviors, leaving gaps in understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('financial report'), and provides specific report types. It distinguishes this as a retrieval tool among siblings that include creation, deletion, and update operations, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get_' tools like get_client or get_invoice.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description lists report types, it doesn't specify scenarios for choosing this over other tools or mention prerequisites like authentication. The context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions optional filters and lists status values, but fails to describe key behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explained), rate limits, or what the output contains. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The single sentence efficiently communicates the action and filtering capability, and the status enumeration is concise. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from parameter details).
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for output explanation. However, the description lacks context on authentication, pagination behavior, and sibling tool differentiation, making it incomplete for optimal agent use.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'optional filters' and enumerates status values ('draft, sent, viewed, outstanding, paid'), which clarifies the 'status' parameter. However, it doesn't explain 'page', 'per_page', or 'customer_id' parameters, leaving three of four parameters without semantic context. The partial coverage justifies a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List invoices with optional filters.' It specifies the verb ('list') and resource ('invoices'), and mentions filtering capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_invoice' (singular retrieval) or 'list_estimates' (different resource), which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'list_invoices' over 'get_invoice' (for single invoice retrieval) or 'list_estimates' (for a different resource type), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The mention of filters is functional but not contextual.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'permanently' which hints at irreversibility, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, confirmation prompts, error conditions, or what happens to associated data. For a destructive operation, this is insufficient.
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?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted text. Every word earns its place in communicating the core functionality.
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?
Given this is a destructive operation with no annotations and minimal description, the completeness is inadequate. However, the presence of an output schema somewhat mitigates this by providing structured return information. The description should do more to explain the consequences and constraints of permanent deletion.
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?
The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what the schema provides (a single 'invoice_id' parameter). With 0% schema description coverage, the baseline would be lower, but since there's only one parameter and its purpose is obvious from context, it meets minimum viability without compensating for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target resource ('an invoice'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_invoice' or 'send_invoice' beyond the obvious verb difference, which keeps it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_invoice' or 'send_invoice', nor are there any prerequisites or warnings about irreversible deletion mentioned. The description only states what it does, not when or why to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'full details' entails. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get full details'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter guidance, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication or error cases, making it only partially complete for effective agent use.
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?
The description mentions 'a specific client,' implying a client_id is needed, which aligns with the input schema's single parameter. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no details about the client_id parameter. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what's inferred from the schema structure, meeting the baseline for low coverage without fully compensating.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('full details of a specific client'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_clients' (which likely returns multiple clients) or 'update_client' (which modifies a client), leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this tool over alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a client_id), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_clients' for bulk retrieval or 'update_client' for modifications. This leaves the agent without contextual usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get full details' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'full details' includes. This leaves significant gaps for a read operation.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks behavioral context. Without annotations, it should cover more about permissions or response structure, though the output schema mitigates some gaps.
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 0%, but the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It implies the parameter 'expense_id' is used to identify a specific expense, but doesn't explain format, constraints, or examples. With one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of detail reduces it to 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('full details of a specific expense'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_expenses' or 'get_invoice', which would require more specificity about scope or resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_expenses' for multiple expenses or 'get_invoice' for other resource types. The description implies usage for retrieving details of a single expense but lacks explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation but doesn't specify permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's idempotent. The phrase 'full details' is vague about what data is included beyond line items.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core action and resource, though it lacks behavioral details that would be helpful without annotations.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only implies the parameter 'invoice_id' without explaining its format or constraints. The baseline is 3 because the schema provides the parameter structure, but the description adds minimal value beyond that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'full details of a specific invoice including line items', making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list_invoices' or 'update_invoice', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an invoice ID) or compare it to sibling tools like 'list_invoices' for browsing or 'update_invoice' for modifications.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists expenses with filtering, but doesn't describe pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output contains. This is inadequate for a tool with multiple parameters and an output schema, leaving key behavioral traits unspecified.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List expenses') and includes the key optional feature ('with optional client filter'). There is no wasted language, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description lacks details on pagination behavior, filtering context, and usage guidelines. It meets a basic threshold but leaves significant gaps in guiding the agent effectively.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'optional client filter,' which maps to the 'client_id' parameter, adding some semantic meaning. However, it doesn't explain the 'page' and 'per_page' parameters for pagination or provide details on client_id format/usage. The description adds partial value but doesn't fully address the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('expenses'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also mentions an optional client filter, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'list_invoices' or 'list_estimates' beyond the resource name, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for filtering, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_expense' for single items or 'list_invoices' for other resources. This leaves the agent with minimal direction on appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('send an invoice') but does not cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether it triggers notifications, if it's idempotent, or potential side effects (e.g., marking the invoice as sent). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) but no annotations and low parameter coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core action but lacks details on behavior, usage context, and parameter nuances, making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies the 'invoice_id' parameter is used to identify which invoice to send, but does not explain format constraints, valid ranges, or where to obtain the ID. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's basic structure, meeting the baseline for low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('send') and resource ('invoice') with the delivery method ('by email to the client'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_invoice' or 'update_invoice', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether it should follow 'create_invoice' or if it's for sending drafts versus final invoices. It lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'Complete[s] authentication,' implying a state-changing operation, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it requires prior setup, what happens on success/failure, if it stores tokens, or any rate limits. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.
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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two concise sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and parameter usage. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (authentication with state changes), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces the need to explain return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic action and parameter context but lacks details on prerequisites, error handling, or security implications, which are important for an authentication tool.
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?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that the 'code' comes from 'the redirect URL' and should be 'Paste[d],' clarifying its source and usage. However, it doesn't detail the code's format, length, or validation rules, leaving some semantic gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Complete authentication with an authorization code.' It specifies the verb ('Complete authentication') and resource ('authorization code'), and distinguishes it from the sibling 'freshbooks_authenticate' by mentioning 'if callback server isn't used.' However, it doesn't fully differentiate from all siblings, as other tools like 'freshbooks_whoami' also relate to authentication.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'if callback server isn't used.' It implies an alternative (using a callback server) but doesn't explicitly name it or detail when not to use this tool. No misleading guidance is present, but it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to other authentication-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions authentication context but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or whether it's idempotent. The description is accurate but lacks depth for a tool that likely involves API calls and authentication state.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and resources. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies what information is retrieved, though it could benefit from mentioning the output format or authentication prerequisites. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return value details.
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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs, aligning with the parameter-less nature.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Get') and the exact resources returned ('current authenticated user's identity, account ID, and business info'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on authentication/user info rather than CRUD operations on business entities like clients or invoices.
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?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'current authenticated user,' suggesting this tool should be used when needing to verify or retrieve the authenticated user's details. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions, such as whether it requires prior authentication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it initiates OAuth2 authentication, returns a URL for browser redirection, and automatically saves tokens after authorization. This covers the key behavioral aspects for an authentication tool.
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?
The description is perfectly concise with just two sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: the first explains what the tool does, and the second explains the outcome. There's zero wasted language or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is an authentication tool with 0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema, the description provides complete context. It explains the purpose, the process, and the outcome without needing to detail parameters or return values (which the output schema will cover).
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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and behavior instead.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Start FreshBooks OAuth2 authentication') and the resource involved (FreshBooks authentication flow). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'freshbooks_authenticate_with_code' by focusing on initiating the OAuth flow rather than handling the callback with a code.
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?
The description provides clear context about when to use this tool ('Start FreshBooks OAuth2 authentication') and what happens after ('After authorizing, tokens are saved automatically'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'freshbooks_authenticate_with_code' for different authentication scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![MCP-Freshbooks MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AlexlaGuardia/MCP-Freshbooks/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AlexlaGuardia/MCP-Freshbooks)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![MCP-Freshbooks MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AlexlaGuardia/MCP-Freshbooks/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AlexlaGuardia/MCP-Freshbooks)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/AlexlaGuardia/MCP-Freshbooks'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server