Retrieve and filter expense reports by status, category, date range, or contract to review and manage Deel expenses.
List expense reports with optional filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Results per page | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| status | No | Filter by expense status | |
| to_date | No | End date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| category | No | Filter by expense category | |
| from_date | No | Start date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| contract_id | No | Filter by contract ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description carries a lighter burden — but it adds nothing beyond that. It does not mention pagination behavior, default page size, or result ordering, all of which matter for a 7-parameter list endpoint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse rather than verbose, which is a completeness problem rather than a conciseness one.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description should at least indicate what the list returns and how pagination behaves, since there is no structured output to fall back on. As written, an agent cannot tell the response shape or default paging from the definition alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the limit, offset, status enum, dates, category, and contract_id. The description's 'optional filters' adds no meaning beyond the schema, and per the high-coverage baseline a 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('List expense reports'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from get_expense or create_expense by intent. However, it offers no differentiation from other list_* siblings in this dense tool set, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'with optional filters' hints at when filtering applies but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over get_expense (single record) or the approve/decline variants. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.