Skip to main content
Glama
RPasquale

lightbulb-mcp

by RPasquale
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

expensify_list_reports

Read-onlyIdempotent

List expense reports from Expensify for a specified project account. Use this read-only action to retrieve and review report details within your connector workflow.

Instructions

Expensify connector operation list_reports (platform tool expensify.list_reports).

Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority.

Args: arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation. project_id: Authenticated Project UUID. project_ref: Exact project correlation reference. connector_account_ref: Project-bound connector account alias. idempotency_key: Stable business-action identity. effect: Required and must be read; Spring verifies it. approval_ref: Approved platform task UUID when resuming a write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
effectYes
argumentsNo{}
project_idNo
project_refNo
approval_refNo
idempotency_keyNo
connector_account_refNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / approval_ref
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Approval Ref"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / connector_account_ref
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Connector Account Ref"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / effect
      Added value: +{
+  "const": "read",
+  "title": "Effect",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Idempotency Key"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_id
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Project Id"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_ref
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Project Ref"
+}
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "effect"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive profile. The description adds that 'effect' must be 'read' and Spring verifies it, plus a governance routing constraint, which is useful but does not disclose return shape, pagination, or failure behavior. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The Args block is scannable and organized, but most lines repeat parameter names already visible in the schema while contributing little semantic value. The opening routing sentence is vague, making the description longer than its actual information content.

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?

Even though annotations and an output schema exist, the description omits the core operational semantics: what reports are listed, what the connector operation's arguments should contain, and how this differs from sibling Expensify tools. An agent could guess the function from the name but not confidently build the invocation payload.

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 parameter list carries the burden of explaining the 7 inputs. It provides some glosses, such as 'effect must be read' and approval_ref being for resuming writes, but the central 'arguments' parameter is only described as a JSON string without any detail on accepted keys or payload shape, and project_ref remains vague.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description only restates the operation identity as 'Expensify connector operation list_reports (platform tool expensify.list_reports)' and adds a routing constraint. It never states that the tool lists Expensify reports or what the call returns, so the functional purpose is left to inference from the name.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as expensify_list_expenses or expensify_list_policies. The only contextual statement, 'Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority,' is about authorization, not about selecting or rejecting this tool for a task.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools