monarch-mcp2

Reports Get Report Data

reports_get_report_data

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve financial transaction reports with customizable grouping, filtering, and sorting to analyze spending and income patterns.

Instructions

Get report data.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "reports_get_report_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fields`	No	Optional dotted output field paths to return, such as ['id', 'merchant.name', 'category.name'].
`filters`	No
`sort_by`	No
`group_by`	No		category
`timeframe`	No
`output_mode`	No	Output shape to return. Use summary for compact CLI-style defaults, full for complete structured data without raw, and raw for complete structured data including raw payloads.	summary
`session_path`	No
`fill_empty_values`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 5, 2026

TDQS

D1.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, etc., but the description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., data freshness, rate limits). It does not contradict annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely concise (two words) but under-specified. Key information is absent, making it ineffective.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Complete lack of information on output format, filter usage, grouping behavior, and return structure. For a complex tool with 8+ parameters and no output schema, the description is drastically incomplete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Only 25% of parameters have descriptions in the schema, and the tool description adds no parameter explanations. The agent must rely on parameter names alone, which is insufficient given the complexity of filters and grouping.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get report data' is too vague. It does not specify what kind of report data or how it differs from related tools like reports_get_saved_report. The purpose is ambiguous.

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, such as reports_list_saved_reports or reports_get_saved_report. No prerequisites or context for usage.

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

Deploy Server