Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
zoho-bookkeeper-mcp

zoho-bookkeeper-mcp

by bu5hm4nn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_expense

Read-only

Retrieve full details of a specific expense including account, vendor, and billable status from Zoho Books.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific expense. Returns full expense details including account, vendor, and billable status.

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": {
      "expense_id": "<expense_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_expense"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
organization_idNoZoho org ID (uses ZOHO_ORGANIZATION_ID env var if not provided)
expense_idYesExpense ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds specific return fields, which informs the agent of expected output shape. It does not contradict annotations (readOnly matches). However, it does not disclose any potential errors or limitations beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no fluff. Every word adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, strong annotations), the description covers the key return information. It could mention that expense_id is required (though schema indicates it), or that the tool might return an error if the expense doesn't exist, but overall it is adequate.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are well-described in the schema (including env var fallback for organization_id). The description does not add additional semantic meaning to the parameters beyond the schema, but also does not repeat it unnecessarily.

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 the action ('Get detailed information') and the resource ('specific expense'), and enumerates specific return fields (account, vendor, billable status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_expenses (list) and create_expense (create).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this is for retrieving a single known expense versus listing or searching, or that it should be used when full details are 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