Reviews a batch of submitted expense claims, auto-clears routine ones, and flags exceptions with gap codes so reviewers investigate only the claims that need attention.
Check every submitted claim in a batch (e.g. "2026-W43"). Returns auto-cleared claims, exceptions with their gap codes, and a time-saved estimate. Investigate only the exceptions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| batch | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully describes the return shape (auto-cleared claims, exceptions with gap codes, time-saved estimate) and the follow-up workflow, but it is ambiguous about whether 'auto-cleared' means claims are mutated in the system, and it says nothing about permissions or side effects.
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?
Three short sentences, all front-loaded with the core action first, then the return value, then the workflow instruction. No sentence is wasted.
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 batch tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it operates on, what comes back, and what the agent should do next. The main remaining gap is clarity around whether the operation mutates claim state.
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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single 'batch' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does so partially by providing an example format ('2026-W43'), but it does not explain what the empty/default value means or how batches are identified beyond that one example.
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 ('Check every submitted claim in a batch') and distinguishes itself implicitly from single-claim siblings like check_claim and get_claim by operating at batch level. It stops short of naming an alternative tool explicitly, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
'Investigate only the exceptions' gives a clear follow-up rule after calling the tool, which implies the triage use case. However, it never states when to choose this over check_claim or list_claims, and there are no explicit exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.