Inspect and advance expense claims through scoped lifecycle stages, using verified receipts to validate each step.
Inspect or advance expense claims through the scoped chain lifecycle and verified receipts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| now | No | ||
| engine | No | ||
| operation | No | list | |
| entity_ref | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| bundle_json | Yes | ||
| payload_json | No | {} |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'advance' (which implies mutation) and 'verified receipts' (which hints at constraints), but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or what happens to claims. The single sentence is insufficient for behavioral disclosure.
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 one sentence, which is concise, but it is cryptic and lacks structure. It does not separate purpose, usage, or behavioral notes, and the phrase 'scoped chain lifecycle' is jargon that adds no clarity.
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?
With 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description must compensate but fails entirely. It does not explain the operations, required inputs, or what constitutes 'verified receipts'. The presence of an output schema does not help since the description gives no context on how to invoke the tool.
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%, and the description does not explain any of the 7 parameters (e.g., operation, bundle_json, payload_json). The agent has no guidance on how to fill these fields, making the tool effectively unusable without external knowledge.
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 identifies the resource (expense claims) and two actions (inspect, advance), but it is vague about what 'scoped chain lifecycle' means and does not clearly differentiate from other expense-related tools like expensify_list_expenses or xero_list_expense_claims. It is not a tautology but lacks specificity.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when to choose 'inspect' versus 'advance'. The description implies two operations but provides no conditions or exclusions for when each is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.