Skip to main content
Glama
eliaskress

FlowCheck Financial API MCP Server

by eliaskress

Get Cash Flow

flowcheck_get_cashflow

Analyze daily cash inflow and outflow patterns over time windows to identify financial trends and validate processes.

Instructions

Get daily inflow/outflow breakdown over a time window. Returns totals and per-day values. All amounts in cents.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
windowNoTime window (default: 30d)

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for 'flowcheck_get_cashflow' which calls the client's request method to get cash flow data.
    async ({ window }) => {
      const result = await client.request("GET", "/cashflow", {
        params: { window },
      });
      return { content: [{ type: "text" as const, text: result }] };
    },
  • The input schema definition for the 'flowcheck_get_cashflow' tool.
    inputSchema: z.object({
      window: z
        .enum(["7d", "30d", "90d"])
        .optional()
        .describe("Time window (default: 30d)"),
    }),
  • The registration of the 'flowcheck_get_cashflow' tool within the MCP server.
    server.registerTool(
      "flowcheck_get_cashflow",
      {
        title: "Get Cash Flow",
        description:
          "Get daily inflow/outflow breakdown over a time window. " +
          "Returns totals and per-day values. All amounts in cents.",
        inputSchema: z.object({
          window: z
            .enum(["7d", "30d", "90d"])
            .optional()
            .describe("Time window (default: 30d)"),
        }),
      },
      async ({ window }) => {
        const result = await client.request("GET", "/cashflow", {
          params: { window },
        });
        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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that amounts are in cents, which is useful context, but lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. For a financial data tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded, with three sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality, return values, and unit of measurement. There is no wasted text, and it's structured to prioritize key information, though it could be slightly more polished for readability.

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's complexity (a single parameter with full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers what the tool does and the output format but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. Without an output schema, it should ideally explain return values more thoroughly, but it does mention 'totals and per-day values' and 'amounts in cents', which helps.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'window' parameter documented as 'Time window (default: 30d)' and an enum of options. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the meaning of '7d', '30d', or '90d' in context. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 daily inflow/outflow breakdown over a time window' specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('daily inflow/outflow breakdown'), and 'Returns totals and per-day values' clarifies the output. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'flowcheck_get_balance' or 'flowcheck_list_transactions', which might also provide financial data.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a time window but doesn't explain why one would choose this over other tools like 'flowcheck_get_balance' for balance information or 'flowcheck_list_transactions' for transaction details. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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