Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MoneyFlow MCP Server

MoneyFlow MCP Server

by FreddieMcHeart
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

spending

Query the signed net amount per currency for a single category across an inclusive date range.

Instructions

Signed kept amount per currency for one category over [date_from, date_to], both inclusive.

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": {
      "category": "<category>",
      "date_from": "<date_from>",
      "date_to": "<date_to>"
    },
    "name": "spending"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
date_toYes
categoryYes
date_fromYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the result is signed, grouped per currency, and inclusive of both boundary dates, but it does not clarify read-only behavior, date format requirements, or failure conditions.

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 definition is a single dense sentence with the scope and result semantics front-loaded. It contains no redundant wording or 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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return structure. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it should do more to explain date formats, category semantics, and when this tool is preferable to its siblings.

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 needs to compensate. It maps all three parameters to meaning by specifying one category and an inclusive [date_from, date_to] range, but it leaves date formats and valid category values undocumented.

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 states a specific output: signed kept amount per currency for one category over a date range. It is clear enough to distinguish this as a category-scoped spending calculation, though it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings such as category_totals or month_summary.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the category-and-date-range scope.

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