Personal Expense Tracker

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List Expenses Expenses Get

list_expenses_expenses_get

Retrieve all expenses within a specified date range to review spending records. Provide start and end dates to list matching expenses from the database.

Instructions

List all expenses in the database.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "start_date": "<start_date>",
      "end_date": "<end_date>"
    },
    "name": "list_expenses_expenses_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`end_date`	Yes
`start_date`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about read-only semantics, pagination, result ordering, or how the required date window bounds the results. The only behavioral message ('all expenses') actively misleads about filtering.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses, so it is structurally clean, but its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description leaves two required, undocumented date parameters and the absence of any annotation coverage unaddressed. For a two-required-parameter query tool this is not sufficient to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Both parameters are required and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only place their meaning could be conveyed. Instead it never mentions start_date or end_date and claims to return 'all' expenses, which contradicts the mandatory date-range constraint.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('expenses'), but 'in the database' adds no scope information and the phrase 'all expenses' conflicts with the tool's required start_date/end_date filtering. It also does nothing to distinguish this tool from the sibling summarize_expenses_expenses_summarize_get.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the date range that the tool requires, and no routing to or away from the siblings add_expense or summarize_expenses. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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

Deploy Server