Create a new expense entry by specifying date, project, amount, and optional details like notes, expense type, and billable status. Supports dry run to preview before saving.
Create a new expense entry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| amount | Yes | ||
| notes | No | ||
| expense_type_id | No | ||
| is_billable | No | ||
| dry_run | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive (likely yes), authentication requirements, error handling, or side effects. The single sentence fails to convey essential behavior beyond the basic action.
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 extremely concise, consisting of one short sentence. While brevity is good, it sacrifices essential information, making it insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose. The structure lacks any elaboration or context.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain return values, side effects, or parameter dependencies, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its 7 parameters, yet the description adds no information about parameter meanings, formats, or constraints. For example, what 'date' format is expected? How is 'is_billable' used? The description is entirely silent on parameter semantics.
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 clearly states 'Create a new expense entry,' specifying the verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like timeiq_expense_update or timeiq_expense_delete through the use of 'create' in both name and description. However, it could be more specific about the scope or required fields.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as timeiq_expense_update or timeiq_expense_create_many. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Tomi2k/timeiq-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server