Set up automated recurring transaction rules in Firefly III for regular bills, salaries, or transfers. Define amount, frequency, and accounts to keep your records current.
Create a new recurring transaction rule.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| type | Yes | ||
| amount | Yes | ||
| repeat_freq | Yes | ||
| source_name | Yes | ||
| destination_name | 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a create action and offers no information about side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what the response looks like.
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 a single clear sentence with no wasted words and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is concise but sacrifices necessary detail, which is penalized in other dimensions.
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 creation tool with six required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is inadequate. It provides only the basic purpose and leaves all behavioral, contextual, and parameter-level information unspecified.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the six required parameters. An agent cannot infer the meaning of source_name, destination_name, amount, or repeat_freq beyond their raw names and enum values.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new recurring transaction rule.' It clearly states the action and object. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling create_rule, which could also be interpreted as creating a transaction rule.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_rule, create_transaction, or other creation tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.