Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
x5-mcp

x5-mcp

by DashinIN
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

x5_get_category_spending

Read-onlyIdempotent

Estimate category spending for a date range using promo price times quantity, giving approximate totals rather than exact receipt sums.

Instructions

Предварительная ОЦЕНКА трат по категориям: pricePromo × quantity. Семантика цены не подтверждена, это не точные итоги чеков.

Tool call template

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

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "from": "<from>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "x5_get_category_spending"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYes
fromYes
limitNo
networkNo
categoryCodeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the value is computed as pricePromo × quantity and the price semantics are unconfirmed, which tells the agent the result is approximate and may differ from actual receipts.

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?

Two succinct sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and formula, the second adds a necessary data-quality caveat. There is no filler.

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?

The core estimation logic and caveat are covered, but with 5 parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, several details an agent needs (e.g., what network means, how limit/categoryCode affect results, and what the response looks like) are left implicit.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. It never explains the meaning or formatting of from, to, limit, network, or categoryCode; the word 'categories' only mirrors the existing schema property name.

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 states a specific action ('ОЦЕНКА' / preliminary estimate) and a specific resource ('трат по категориям'), and even gives the computation formula (pricePromo × quantity). The disclaimer 'это не точные итоги чеков' sets it apart from receipt-level siblings like x5_get_spending and x5_get_recent_receipts.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It clearly frames the tool for preliminary estimates, which is an explicit usage context, and warns that it is not exact receipt totals, serving as a when-not. However, it does not name an alternative tool for exact spending figures.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools