Fetch expense claims by status, defaulting to submitted, to support reimbursement review and audit.
List expense claims with the given status (default: submitted).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | submitted |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing operation but does not disclose pagination, ordering, permissions, or whether all claims are returned when status is omitted beyond the stated default.
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?
A single compact sentence with the purpose and default front-loaded. There is no wasted text.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, the missing allowed status values and lack of sibling routing guidance leave meaningful gaps for a list tool with a filter parameter.
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 single status parameter has 0% schema description coverage. The description repeats the default and calls it a status filter, but does not list allowed status values, which is essential for correct invocation.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'List expense claims.' The status filter and default are clear, so an agent can distinguish this from singular retrieval tools like get_claim, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as triage_claims.
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 name and the status filter, and the default behavior is stated. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of get_claim, check_claim, or triage_claims.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.