Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
monarch-mcp2

monarch-mcp2

by erikrubstein
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Reports List Saved Reports

reports_list_saved_reports
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve saved reports from Monarch Money, with options to select fields and output modes for summary or full details.

Instructions

List saved reports.

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_list_saved_reports"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsNoOptional dotted output field paths to return, such as ['id', 'merchant.name', 'category.name'].
output_modeNoOutput 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_pathNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond the annotations, such as listing all saved reports or noting any limitations.

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?

The description is too brief, consisting of a single sentence that adds no value. While concise, it lacks necessary details and appears under-specified.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the scope of the listing (e.g., all reports, user-specific) or the behavior of parameters like session_path.

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 high description coverage (67%) with meaningful descriptions for fields and output_mode. The description does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 restates the title ('List saved reports.') without adding any new information, making it essentially a tautology. It fails to differentiate from sibling tools like reports_get_saved_report or reports_get_report_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as retrieving a single saved report or fetching report data. There are no exclusions or context for typical use cases.

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