Skip to main content
Glama
OurFamilyWizard MCP

OurFamilyWizard MCP

by chrischall

ofw_mark_expense_reimbursed

Destructive

Marks the full remaining expense balance as reimbursed externally after an outside-OFW payment. Requires the exact leftToPay, confirms first, sends no money, and cannot be undone.

Instructions

Irreversibly mark the FULL remaining expense balance reimbursed externally. Records an already completed outside-OFW reimbursement only: does NOT send money or use bank/payment endpoints; no partial amounts. Requires expectedRemainingAmount (currency units, positive exact cents) matching the current leftToPay, NOT the full expense total. Reads the current expense, binds the entire detail to confirmation, rechecks immediately before writing, then verifies paid status and unchanged fields. Cannot be undone. On EXPENSE_REIMBURSEMENT_UNCONFIRMED, mayHaveLanded=true: inspect the OFW Expenses log before any retry; never replay blindly. 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).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
expenseIdYesExisting expense entity id
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.
expectedRemainingAmountYesFull remaining external reimbursement in currency units (e.g. 48.50); must match leftToPay, not the expense total

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.23.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true, and the description adds substantial operational context beyond them: irreversibility, recheck-before-write, post-write verification of paid status and unchanged fields, confirmation-before-write behavior, and the mayHaveLanded retry warning. This is unusually rich disclosure for a destructive financial mutation.

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?

The critical constraint (irreversible, full balance only) is front-loaded, and the remainder is dense but purposeful. For an irreversible financial mutation with a confirmation protocol, the length is justified and no sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains the preview/confirmToken response shape, the confirmation-required fallback, and the EXPENSE_REIMBURSEMENT_UNCONFIRMED error with mayHaveLanded. An agent has enough information to call, confirm, and handle failure 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds meaningful semantics by stressing that expectedRemainingAmount must match leftToPay rather than the full expense total. It also explains confirmToken's two-phase fallback and its relationship to MCP_CONFIRM_MODE, which goes beyond the schema's wording.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Irreversibly mark the FULL remaining expense balance reimbursed externally.' It immediately scopes the operation ('no partial amounts', 'does NOT send money') so an agent can distinguish it from ofw_update_expense and ofw_create_expense without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('Records an already completed outside-OFW reimbursement only') and when not to ('does NOT send money or use bank/payment endpoints; no partial amounts'). It also gives precise preconditions for expectedRemainingAmount and a recovery path for EXPENSE_REIMBURSEMENT_UNCONFIRMED, leaving little to inference.

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