Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
rocketmatter-mcp

rocketmatter-mcp

by RosenAdvertising
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_expenses

Retrieve firm-wide expense cards with pagination. Specify page and page size to navigate through all expenses.

Instructions

List expense cards, paginated (firm-wide). The /v1 API honors no server-side filter on expenses — not even matter_id — so none is offered.

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": "list_expenses"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
page_sizeNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral aspects. It discloses that no server-side filtering is available and pagination is supported. However, it does not explain ordering, rate limits, or any side effects. The output schema exists but the description could add context about what fields are returned.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and key constraint. Every word is necessary, and it is easy to scan.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple list tool with only two parameters and an output schema, the description covers pagination and the lack of filtering. It is adequate but could mention the output format or ordering for completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It only mentions pagination, but does not describe 'page' and 'page_size' explicitly or clarify defaults/limits. The schema provides titles and defaults, so the description adds minimal value beyond that.

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 it lists expense cards with pagination and firm-wide scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by specifying the resource (expenses) and highlighting that no server-side filters are offered, which is unique among list tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use: when a paginated list of all expense cards is needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the mention of 'no filter' conveys that for filtered queries, other tools (like get_expense) would be needed.

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