Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Quicken Mac MCP

Quicken Mac MCP

by dweekly
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

spending_over_time

Calculate monthly consumer-spending totals for a date range, optionally grouped by parent category, while excluding transfers and report-excluded transactions.

Instructions

Monthly consumer-spending totals (negative splits) for an inclusive date range, optionally by parent category. Excludes transfers and report-excluded transactions, labels uncategorized rows when grouped, and defaults to checking + credit-card accounts.

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": {
      "start_date": "<start_date>",
      "end_date": "<end_date>"
    },
    "name": "spending_over_time"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
end_dateYesEnd date (ISO 8601)
start_dateYesStart date (ISO 8601)
account_namesNo
account_typesNo
group_by_categoryNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.7.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it reveals that transfers and report-excluded transactions are silently dropped, that uncategorized rows are labeled when grouping, and that the default account scope is checking + credit-card. Missing only details like ordering, which date is the bucket anchor, and result shape.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero waste; the resource and scope lead, followed by exclusion and default behavior. Every clause adds information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 5-parameter read-only aggregation tool with no output schema, the description covers filtering semantics, defaults, and exclusions well enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around return structure and the account-selector parameters.

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 40%, with account_names, account_types, and group_by_category undescribed in the schema. The description compensates for group_by_category (parent-category grouping, uncategorized labeling) and clarifies account-type defaults, but leaves the account_names vs account_types distinction and array formats unexplained.

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 specific verb+resource: monthly consumer-spending totals over an inclusive date range, with an optional parent-category breakdown. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling spending_by_category, which the 'optionally by parent category' phrase partly overlaps with.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'optionally by parent category' phrasing hints that category breakdowns exist but never says when to prefer this over spending_by_category or how it differs. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite guidance is given.

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