Create a new expense report in Autotask PSA by providing a name, submitter resource ID, and week ending date.
Create a new expense report
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Expense report name | |
| description | No | Expense report description | |
| submitterId | Yes | The resource ID of the submitter | |
| weekEndingDate | Yes | Week ending date (YYYY-MM-DD format) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.18.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. No disclosure of side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, or data validation beyond what the schema implies.
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?
Single sentence with no waste, but it under-specifies for a creation tool. Conciseness is good, but could add a bit more information without becoming verbose.
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?
Lacks information about return values, error handling, or post-creation steps. With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal to fully guide an AI agent.
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 100%, so the schema already explains all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional context about parameter usage, formatting (except what's in schema), or constraints like uniqueness or valid resource IDs.
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 'Create a new expense report' clearly states a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_expense_reports and create_expense_item. It is unambiguous but lacks any additional contextual details.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as checking for existing reports via search first. There are no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.