ofw-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ofw_create_expense

Destructive

Log a new expense to the shared OurFamilyWizard ledger. Requires user confirmation first; after submission the expense is permanent and cannot be deleted, so confirm only after reviewing the preview.

Instructions

Log a new expense in OurFamilyWizard. The expense is a money claim that appears in the shared ledger in front of the co-parent immediately, and this server cannot delete it. If the request fails without a definitive answer the result is EXPENSE_UNCONFIRMED: the expense may already exist, so do NOT retry until ofw_list_expenses shows it did not land. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call performs NO write and returns a preview of exactly what would happen plus a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE).

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": {
      "amount": "<amount>",
      "description": "<description>"
    },
    "name": "ofw_create_expense"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`amount`	Yes	Expense amount
`description`	Yes	Expense description
`confirmToken`	No	ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.19.4Sep 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing that the expense appears immediately to the co-parent, that the server cannot delete it, that an ambiguous failure means EXPENSE_UNCONFIRMED, and that the first call may perform NO write in fallback mode. These are critical behavioral traits not inferable from readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, or destructiveHint alone.

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?

Three dense sentences cover purpose, side effects, failure handling, confirmation behavior, and retry guidance without redundancy. The most important operational warning, the no-retry rule, is front-loaded near the beginning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers the full call lifecycle: preview mode, confirmToken, repeat call, ambiguous failure, and verification via ofw_list_expenses. For a mutation tool with confirmation semantics and destructive implications, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke it safely.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that a repeat call must use the same arguments and that the confirmToken must only be passed after explicit user approval, which reinforces and extends the confirmToken schema semantics. It does not need to restate amount or description since those are fully documented in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Log a new expense in OurFamilyWizard,' and clarifies that it is a money claim appearing in the shared ledger. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ofw_list_expenses and ofw_get_expense_totals.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it instructs not to retry after an ambiguous failure until ofw_list_expenses confirms the expense did not land, and it explains the confirmation flow with a two-step fallback. This is concrete operational guidance beyond a generic description.

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