expense-tracker-remote-mcp-server

add_expense

Add an expense to the database with required amount and category, plus optional date, description, and subcategory.

Instructions

Add a new expense to the database.

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": {
      "amount": "<amount>",
      "category": "<category>"
    },
    "name": "add_expense"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	No
`amount`	Yes
`category`	Yes
`description`	No
`subcategory`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral details. It only states that it adds a new expense, without mentioning validation rules, required fields, return behavior, or side effects. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a mutation operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence and is appropriately concise, delivering the core purpose without padding. However, given the lack of detail elsewhere, the brevity is not a strength by itself and could have been expanded with a few more useful phrases.

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?

For a simple create operation with a rich schema (required fields, defaults) and an output schema, the description is minimally viable but lacks instruction on parameter formats, validation, and usage context. It covers the basic purpose but not enough to guide correct invocation in edge cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% undocumented parameters (coverage 0%), and the description provides no parameter semantics. The agent must rely solely on field names and types, which is insufficient for understanding optional fields like 'date' or 'subcategory' and constraints like 'amount' being a number.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Add') and the resource ('new expense'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like list_expenses, delete_expense, and update_expense. The verb+resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this is for creating new records or specify any prerequisites, exclusions, or context, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and sibling list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server