expense-tracker-remote-mcp-server

update_expense

Update an existing expense's details by providing its ID and optionally setting new amount, category, date, description, or subcategory.

Instructions

Update an existing expense's details.

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": {
      "expense_id": "<expense_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_expense"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	No
`amount`	No
`category`	No
`expense_id`	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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update an existing expense's details' without explaining whether it performs a partial update or full replacement, what happens to unspecified fields, or any side effects. This is minimal behavioral information.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words, effectively conveying the core purpose. It is front-loaded and concise, though it could arguably include more detail without becoming verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and a minimal description, the description is inadequate for disambiguating update semantics (e.g., partial vs. full update). The existing output schema is not referenced, and no context about required ID or return value is given.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description mentions no parameters or their roles. Although parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema, and the default-null behavior for optional fields is not explained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing expense's details'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like add_expense and delete_expense. It accurately and concisely states what the tool does.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using add_expense for new expenses or delete_expense for removals. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the usage context entirely implicit.

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

Deploy Server