Retrieve a Tricount member's paid total, owed share, balance, debts, and category expenses to see who owes whom and support settlement.
Detalle de un miembro: cuánto pagó, cuánto le corresponde, su balance, a quién debe o quién le debe, y sus gastos por categoría.
Args: member: nombre del miembro (acepta coincidencia parcial). tricount: link o key del tricount.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| member | Yes | ||
| tricount | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned data shape (balance, debts, per-category expenses), which is useful since there's no output schema, but says nothing about error behavior when a member doesn't match, permissions, or how an omitted tricount is resolved.
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?
The body is a single front-loaded sentence that earns its length by enumerating the returned fields, followed by compact standard Args. Little waste, though the field enumeration is slightly list-heavy.
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?
For a 2-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers both parameters and the returned content. Missing only minor behavioral details (error/not-found handling).
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'member' accepts partial matching and 'tricount' accepts either a link or a key. These format details add real meaning the bare schema (plain strings) does not provide.
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?
States a specific verb+resource (get member detail) and enumerates exactly what the detail contains — paid, owed, balance, debts in both directions, and per-category expenses. It is clear, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_tricount_summary or list_expenses.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is given — nothing says when to pick this over get_tricount_summary or list_expenses, nor any prerequisite (e.g., that a tricount must be connected first). The use case is only inferable from the content list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.