Add an expense with a designation and TTC amount; optionally link it to a project via chantier_id, supplier, category, and VAT details.
Ajoute une dépense (permission expenses:write). Montants en texte (ex. « 240.00 »). Rattache à un chantier via chantier_id (numéro du chantier dans le compte).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dossier | No | ||
| categorie | No | ||
| montant_ht | No | ||
| chantier_id | No | ||
| designation | Yes | ||
| fournisseur | No | ||
| montant_ttc | Yes | ||
| montant_tva | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Input schema / properties / dossierAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Dossier"
+}v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the permission scope and the required text format for amounts, but says nothing about what gets created, whether the expense is a draft or final, what happens on validation failure, or how duplicates are handled. For a mutation tool this leaves major gaps.
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?
Three short clauses, front-loaded with the purpose and then the two most consequential call details (format and linking). No filler, though the parenthetical permission note interrupts the flow slightly.
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?
A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 8 parameters at 0% schema coverage. The description covers only two of those parameters and no success/failure behavior, so an agent lacks the context to call it confidently with all fields populated.
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 coverage is 0% and there are 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for montant_ttc (text format, e.g. '240.00') and chantier_id (the site number within the account), but leaves dossier, categorie, montant_ht, fournisseur, and montant_tva completely undocumented, and does not explain the relationship between the three montant fields.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Ajoute une dépense'), which cleanly separates it from the read-oriented sibling 'depenses'. It does not explicitly name an alternative or clarify how it relates to 'justificatifs_depense', so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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 discloses the required permission (expenses:write), which is a useful prerequisite, but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and never points to a sibling alternative. An agent must infer usage context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.