Skip to main content
Glama
eliaskress

FlowCheck Financial API MCP Server

by eliaskress

Active Alerts

flowcheck_get_alerts

Retrieve active alerts and discrepancies categorized by severity (high/medium/low) with summaries and related payout IDs to detect issues and validate financial workflows.

Instructions

Get active alerts and discrepancies. Returns severity-categorized alerts (high/medium/low) with summaries and related payout IDs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The handler implementation for the `flowcheck_get_alerts` tool, which fetches active alerts and discrepancies from the FlowCheck API.
    server.registerTool(
      "flowcheck_get_alerts",
      {
        title: "Active Alerts",
        description:
          "Get active alerts and discrepancies. " +
          "Returns severity-categorized alerts (high/medium/low) " +
          "with summaries and related payout IDs.",
        inputSchema: z.object({}),
      },
      async () => {
        const result = await client.request("GET", "/agent/alerts");
        return { content: [{ type: "text" as const, text: result }] };
      },
    );
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool returns, not how it behaves. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or what happens when no alerts exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two concise sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and return format. The description is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from output details.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and output format but lacks important context. It doesn't explain the relationship between 'alerts' and 'discrepancies', how the data is sourced, or what constitutes 'active' versus historical alerts, leaving gaps for the agent.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the empty input. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, earning a baseline 4 for not adding unnecessary information.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get active alerts and discrepancies' with specific output details (severity-categorized alerts with summaries and payout IDs). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'flowcheck_list_discrepancies' by focusing on active alerts rather than listing all discrepancies, but doesn't explicitly contrast with that sibling.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'flowcheck_list_discrepancies' or 'flowcheck_get_reconciliation'. The description implies it's for retrieving current alerts, but provides no context about prerequisites, timing, or comparison with sibling tools.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/eliaskress/flow-check-financial-api-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server