Skip to main content
Glama
gohluke

Dayze MCP

by gohluke

Update Expense

update_expense

Update an existing expense row by its ID, modifying fields like amount, date, category, merchant, or notes. Correct or adjust expense details in one API call.

Instructions

PATCH an expense row. ($0.10; API key required)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoYYYY-MM-DD expense_date
tagsNo
notesNo
amountNo
sourceNoAlias of payment_method
projectNoVenture label → project:{slug} tag
categoryNo
currencyNo
merchantNo
expense_idYes
request_idNoClient idempotency key (retries return original result).
descriptionNo
external_idNoOptional; merges ext:{source}:{id} into tags
payment_methodNoe.g. venmo, cash, card
idempotency_keyNoAlias for request_id.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
changedNo
expenseNoExpense/income transaction row.
messageNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.28.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare non-destructive and not read-only. The description adds the cost ($0.10) and auth requirement (API key), which are useful, but does not explain merge semantics implied by the schema (external_id merging into tags, source as alias of payment_method), whether unspecified fields are preserved, or idempotency behavior.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two terse clauses front-load the action and immediately state cost and auth. Size is appropriate; no filler.

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?

For a 15-parameter mutation tool with an output schema present, the description omits partial-update semantics, alias handling, and merge behavior that would prevent incorrect calls. It leaves consequential gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 47%, so the description must compensate and fails to. It does not explain that only expense_id is required and all other fields are optional partial updates, nor clarify alias relationships documented only inside the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (PATCH) and resource (expense row), which distinguishes it from log_expense/get_expenses. However, it does not differentiate from a specific alternative edit path beyond the verb choice, and the sibling set has several update_* tools without overlap here.

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 when-to-use guidance or exclusions are present. The agent receives no signal about when to choose update_expense versus re-logging with log_expense, or whether partial updates are preferred over full replacement.

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