budget-mcp

budget_dashboard

Browse an interactive budget dashboard to analyze spending with a category breakdown chart and review transaction data table for informed financial decisions.

Instructions

Browse the interactive budget dashboard with a category breakdown chart and transaction data table.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "budget_dashboard"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type`	No
`limit`	No
`month`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It says 'Browse' (implying read-only) but doesn't disclose whether this is safe, what data scope is covered, whether the chart is static or interactive, or what happens with the limit/month parameters that appear in the schema but are unexplained in the description.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the action verb. Efficient though under-specified.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, 3 undocumented params, and no differentiation from 11 siblings. The description is far too thin for a tool with this complexity and ambiguity about what 'browse' returns.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it mentions none of the three parameters (type, limit, month). No meaning is added beyond what the schema's raw property names imply, which is minimal for 'type' and 'month'.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states it browses a budget dashboard with a category breakdown chart and transaction data table, giving a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't clearly differentiate from siblings like get_transactions or get_summary, which could overlap with the dashboard's data display.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_transactions, get_summary, or spending_trends. It doesn't state what makes the dashboard distinct from querying individual data sources directly.

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

Deploy Server