Generate a pre-signed URL to upload receipts for automatic matching with existing expenses in the Brex financial platform.
Create a pre-signed URL for uploading a receipt that will be automatically matched with existing expenses
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt_name | Yes | Name of the receipt file (e.g., 'receipt.jpg') | |
| receipt_type | No | Type of the receipt (optional) | |
| notify_email | No | Email address to notify after matching (optional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the creation of a pre-signed URL and automatic matching, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, what happens after matching, whether this is a read-only or write operation, or error conditions. Significant gaps remain for a tool that presumably creates resources.
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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place - 'pre-signed URL' specifies the output type, 'uploading a receipt' specifies the action, and 'automatically matched with existing expenses' specifies the purpose. No wasted words or redundancy.
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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic purpose but lacks important contextual information. It doesn't explain what the pre-signed URL looks like, what format the receipt should be in, how matching works, or what happens after matching. The description is complete enough to understand what the tool does but not how to use it effectively.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how parameters affect the matching process, provide examples of receipt_type values, or clarify the notification workflow.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Create a pre-signed URL for uploading a receipt') and the outcome ('that will be automatically matched with existing expenses'), distinguishing it from the sibling 'upload_receipt' tool which lacks the matching functionality. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.
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?
The description implies usage context for receipt matching with existing expenses, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'upload_receipt' or when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.