Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

OurFamilyWizard MCP

by chrischall

ofw_update_expense

Destructive

Update an existing OurFamilyWizard expense — amount, date, payer, title, children, or receipts — while preserving every field you don't pass.

Instructions

Change an existing OurFamilyWizard expense. Pass expenseId plus ONLY the fields you want to change; every field you omit keeps its current value. The tool reads the expense from OFW first and sends the merged result, because OFW's update replaces the whole expense and a field left out would otherwise be erased. If a field you did not pass cannot be read back from OFW, the update is refused as EXPENSE_FIELDS_UNREADABLE and names the field; pass it explicitly (description:null or receiptFileId:null to send none). receiptFileId REPLACES all current receipts; omit it to keep them. Set privateExpense=false to publish a private expense to the co-parent. The confirmation is bound to the expense exactly as read, so if it changes on OFW in between, the update is refused instead of overwriting that change. If the request fails without a definitive answer the result is EXPENSE_UNCONFIRMED: the update may already have been applied, so check ofw_list_expenses before retrying. 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

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNoNew title (omit to keep)
amountNoNew full expense amount (omit to keep)
payerIdNoNew payer: the userId of the parent who owes (omit to keep)
childrenNoNew child userIds, replacing the current list (omit to keep)
expenseIdYesExisting OFW expense entity id
categoryIdNoNew OFW expense category id (omit to keep)
descriptionNoNew description; null removes it (omit to keep)
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.
purchaseDateNoNew expense date, YYYY-MM-DD (omit to keep)
receiptFileIdNoReceipt fileId that REPLACES all current receipts; null removes them (omit to keep)
privateExpenseNotrue = visible only to you; false = shared with the co-parent (omit to keep)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.20.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only reveal that this is a destructive, open-world write; the description goes far beyond that, disclosing the read-then-merge implementation, the EXPENSE_FIELDS_UNREADABLE refusal with field naming, receiptFileId replacing all receipts, privateExpense=false publishing, optimistic-concurrency refusal if the expense changed, and the EXPENSE_UNCONFIRMED ambiguity with retry guidance. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the merge rule, then layered with error and confirmation semantics. It is dense and lengthy, but nearly every sentence carries actionable information; the confirmation fallback paragraph is the only place that reads as heavier than strictly necessary.

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?

For an 11-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema and no elicitation guarantees, the description covers merge semantics, failure modes, concurrency, and the two-step confirmation fallback. An agent has everything needed 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter, but the description adds cross-field semantics the schema lacks: every omitted field keeps its current value, receiptFileId REPLACES all receipts, and the null-sentinel convention for clearing description/receiptFileId. The only minor gap is that confirmToken's schema text already covers most of what the description repeats.

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+resource ('Change an existing OurFamilyWizard expense') and immediately adds the distinguishing semantic: partial update via merge. An agent can tell it apart from ofw_create_expense, ofw_list_expenses, and ofw_update_event without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicit about when to pass fields ('ONLY the fields you want to change'), when to use confirmToken, and routes to ofw_list_expenses when the outcome is EXPENSE_UNCONFIRMED. It does not explicitly name create_expense as the alternative for new expenses, so it stops just short of full when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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