Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

freshbooks-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

freshbooks_create_expense

Destructive

Record an expense in FreshBooks with amount, date, vendor, category, and client rebilling, requiring user confirmation before submission.

Instructions

Record an expense. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken and makes no network call, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoExpense date, YYYY-MM-DD
notesNo
amountYesFreshBooks money value — the amount is a string, not a number.
fieldsNoAdditional raw FreshBooks expense fields, merged into the payload.
vendorNoWho was paid
billableNoWhether the expense is rebillable to the client
clientidNoClient to rebill this expense to
categoryidNoCategory id (see freshbooks_list_expense_categories)
confirmTokenNoONLY 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.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.1.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmToken
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "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.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.7.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further and discloses non-obvious behavior: a confirmation prompt where supported, otherwise a no-network-call phase-1 preview plus confirmToken, and that only a repeat call proceeds. It still omits what the tool does on success/validation failure, so not a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the confirmation flow following. The second sentence is dense and packs several clauses, but every clause carries operational meaning and there is no filler.

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?

For a 9-parameter destructive mutation with nested objects, no output schema and strong annotation coverage, the description covers the highest-risk aspect an agent must get right: the two-phase confirmation path that prevents an unintended write. Remaining gaps (return shape, error behavior) are minor given annotations and schema.

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 description coverage is 89%, so the schema already documents amount, date, vendor, billable, clientid, categoryid and confirmToken thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating the confirmToken protocol, which itself is already fully described in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a clear verb+resource ("Record an expense") that is easy to distinguish from siblings like freshbooks_get_expense or freshbooks_list_expenses. It does not explicitly name an alternative or scope its difference from update/list variants, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description supplies important usage mechanics for the confirmation protocol, which is genuinely useful context. However, it gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance against sibling write tools (e.g. when to reach for this versus a related expense or client tool), leaving that to inference.

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