Retrieve a specific expense record using its unique identifier.
Get an expense record by id.
Args: id: The id of the expense.
Returns: ExpenseImageData: The expense record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| image | No | The expense image | |
| expense | No | The extracted expense data |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the operation (get), the return type (ExpenseImageData), and implies a read-only action, but it does not mention behavior such as not-found errors, authentication requirements, or potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-organized with Args and Returns sections. There is no filler, though the Returns line is minimal and could be more informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter getter with an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it states the purpose, the parameter, and the return type. It lacks explicit usage guidance and error behavior, but these are minor for this tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description only restates the parameter with 'id: The id of the expense,' which adds little beyond the schema's name and type. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to provide meaningful context such as id format, source, or validation rules.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Get an expense record by id.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list expenses or summarize them, and the single-parameter design reinforces the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the phrase 'by id'—use this when you have a specific expense id and need the full record. However, there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools like get_latest_expenses or summaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.