cledara-mcp

Summarise spend

spend_summary

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate total spend over a date range, grouped by application, team, owner, card, month, or account type, with separate currency totals and no FX conversion.

Instructions

Total spend over a date range grouped by application, team, owner, card, month or account type, with separate totals per currency (no FX conversion). Spend counts card payments net of refunds plus reimbursements by default, reported as positive numbers. Defaults to the last 30 days.

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": "spend_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	No	End of range (inclusive): YYYY-MM-DD (UTC) or an RFC 3339 timestamp.
`from`	No	Start of range (inclusive): YYYY-MM-DD (UTC) or an RFC 3339 timestamp.
`groupBy`	No		application
`applicationIds`	No	Only include transactions for these application IDs (from list_applications).
`transactionTypes`	No	Override which transaction types count as spend. Default: cardSend, cardReceive, reimbursement.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real substance beyond them: no FX conversion, per-currency totals, net-of-refunds accounting, and positive-number sign convention. It does not mention result size limits or whether aggregates can be paginated, which keeps it below 5.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with what is counted and how it is grouped, then accounting rules, then the default range. No filler and no restatement of the title.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing results, and it does convey the shape (grouped totals, one set per currency) and the accounting convention. It omits the exact result structure and any note on row limits for wide date ranges.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds interpretation the schema lacks: what 'spend' actually includes (card net of refunds plus reimbursements) and that totals are split per currency rather than converted. groupBy's enum values are echoed from the schema, which is redundant but harmless.

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+resource (aggregate total spend) and enumerates the available groupings, which clearly separates it from list_transactions. It never names the sibling it replaces, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The default window ('last 30 days') and default spend composition are given, which implies when the tool is applicable, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_transactions or how to combine it with filters. Usage must be inferred from the defaults.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server