ExpenseTracker

Add Expense

add_expense

Record a new expense by specifying date, amount, and category, with optional notes, tags, subcategory, payment method, or recurring status.

Instructions

Add a new expense to the tracker.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	Yes	Date of expense in YYYY-MM-DD format (e.g. '2026-09-14').
`note`	No	Optional free-text description of the expense.
`tags`	No	Optional comma-separated tags for flexible filtering (e.g. 'work,client-x').
`amount`	Yes	Amount spent in INR. Must be greater than 0.
`category`	Yes	Expense category (e.g. 'food', 'transport'). Must match categories.json.
`subcategory`	No	Optional sub-category (e.g. 'groceries'). Must match categories.json.
`is_recurring`	No	Whether this is a recurring expense (e.g. subscription, rent).
`payment_method`	No	One of: cash, upi, credit_card, debit_card, net_banking, wallet.	cash

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

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 behavioral burden, but it only states that a new expense is added. It does not disclose side effects, validation rules, ID generation, duplicate handling, or whether recurring expenses update budgets.

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 a single short sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However, it is so terse that it omits useful context; it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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?

With 8 parameters, no annotations, and a mutation operation, the description is too minimal. It does not mention return behavior, validation constraints, or how this expense interacts with budgets and summaries, leaving an agent without enough context for correct invocation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline of 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 uses a clear verb ('Add') and resource ('a new expense'), making the operation's purpose immediately obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, but the action is distinct enough from edit/delete/list that an agent can select it correctly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as edit_expense or search_expenses. The description implies the creation use case but provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server