Unanet GovCon ERP MCP Server

unanet_submit_expense

Submit expense reports to Unanet with project, date, category, amount, and description, ensuring expenses are recorded and reimbursed correctly.

Instructions

Submit an expense report to Unanet

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "date": "<date>",
      "category": "<category>",
      "amount": "<amount>",
      "description": "<description>"
    },
    "name": "unanet_submit_expense"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	Yes	Date in YYYY-MM-DD format
`amount`	Yes
`category`	Yes	Expense category (e.g., Travel, Meals, Supplies)
`projectId`	Yes
`description`	Yes
`reimbursable`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosure. It merely restates the tool's name ('Submit an expense report') without any details on side effects, required permissions, error states, or what happens after submission.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no redundant words, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is too brief to be fully useful, but for conciseness it's appropriate length.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a submit action with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely underspecified. It fails to cover prerequisites, success/failure behavior, or parameter details, leaving the agent with too little context to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters1/5

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

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it mentions no parameters at all. It adds no value beyond the schema fields that have descriptions.

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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Submit' and names the resource 'an expense report', clearly indicating the action. It distinguishes from sibling 'unanet_submit_timesheet' by the resource type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like unanet_submit_timesheet or unanet_update_project_budget. It only states the basic action, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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

Deploy Server