Create a recurring bill by providing its name, amount range, start date, and repeat frequency. This enables tracking and management of scheduled expenses in Firefly III.
Create a new bill.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| amount_max | Yes | ||
| amount_min | Yes | ||
| repeat_freq | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Create a new bill' implies a mutation but says nothing about side effects, idempotency, return values, or required permissions.
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 extremely short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise. For a five-required-parameter mutation, a single generic sentence is not appropriately sized.
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?
Given the tool has five required parameters, no schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, a sentence saying only 'Create a new bill' is severely incomplete. An agent would have no information on valid values, relationships, or expected results.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning for the five required parameters. Field names like amount_min, amount_max, date, and repeat_freq give hints, but the description supplies zero semantic value to disambiguate their formats or constraints.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new bill'), matching a create-bill operation. It is distinct from sibling tools by resource name (bill vs rule, budget, recurring), though it adds no detail beyond the noun.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_recurring or create_rule, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The only implied usage is that you'd use it to create a bill, which is not enough to route an agent confidently.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.