inspect_categoryReturns the individual expense records behind a synthetic category total, so you can trace and verify how each Supplies, Travel, or Software figure was calculated.
Return the records contributing to one synthetic category total.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only that it returns contributing records rather than aggregates, but does not explain what 'synthetic' means, whether records are ordered or truncated, or what the caller should expect beyond annotations.
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 efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. However, the unexplained term 'synthetic category total' reduces clarity despite the brevity.
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 no output schema, the description should clarify what the returned records look like and what 'synthetic' means. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the description leaves the agent without enough context to interpret the result or know when this tool is appropriate versus summarize_spending.
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 0%, and the description does not explain the category parameter beyond the vague phrase 'synthetic category total'. The enum values are visible in the schema, but the description does not add meaning about how the category maps to underlying records.
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 verb and resource ('Return the records') and scopes it to a category, but 'synthetic category total' is unexplained jargon. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling summarize_spending, leaving the agent unsure which to choose.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus summarize_spending. The description implies a drill-down use case but never states the condition that selects it over the sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.