Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Cuéntica MCP

Cuéntica MCP

by dacmail
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

update_expense_payments

Destructive

Update expense payments to mark expenses as paid or modify payment details including amount, method, and account.

Instructions

⚠️ Actualiza pagos de un gasto (ej: marcarlo como pagado). payments: [{id?, amount, payment_method, paid, origin_account, date?}]

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": {
      "expense_id": "<expense_id>",
      "payments": "<payments>"
    },
    "name": "update_expense_payments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
expense_idYes
paymentsYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so mutation is expected. The description adds a warning emoji and mentions 'Actualiza', consistent with mutation, but does not detail repercussions of updates.

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 short and front-loaded with a warning. It efficiently conveys the purpose and parameter shape, but could be better structured.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With an output schema present, return values are covered. However, the description omits prerequisites (e.g., expense must exist) and error conditions, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It briefly outlines the payment object structure with example fields, but lacks details on required fields, constraints, or validation rules.

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 clearly identifies the action: 'Actualiza pagos de un gasto' (updates payments of an expense) with an example. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like mark_expense_paid.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context on prerequisites or constraints such as requiring the expense to exist.

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