Record an expense by providing a designation and TTC amount; optionally assign it to a project using chantier_id.
Ajoute une dépense (permission expenses:write). Montants en texte (ex. « 240.00 »). Rattache à un chantier via chantier_id (numéro du chantier dans le compte).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| categorie | No | ||
| montant_ht | No | ||
| chantier_id | No | ||
| designation | Yes | ||
| fournisseur | No | ||
| montant_ttc | Yes | ||
| montant_tva | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that expenses:write permission is required and that amounts are passed as text (e.g. '240.00'), which is non-obvious behavior. But it does not disclose what a created expense returns, idempotency/duplicate handling, or error behavior for a write operation.
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?
Three short, front-loaded sentences with the action stated first and no filler. Efficient, though it leans on terse parentheticals rather than a fully structured statement.
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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is thin: it omits return behavior and most parameter meanings, so an agent lacks what it needs to call this confidently.
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%, so the description must compensate. It only explains montant_ttc's text format and chantier_id's meaning (worksite number in the account), leaving categorie, fournisseur, montant_ht, montant_tva and designation undefined—most of the 7 parameters are undocumented.
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 and resource ('Ajoute une dépense'), so an agent can tell it apart from the read-oriented sibling 'depenses'. However it never explicitly contrasts itself with that sibling, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative among the many siblings (depenses, journal_achats, factures). The only implicit signal is the required permission expenses:write, which is a prerequisite, not usage routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.