Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
expense-mcp

expense-mcp

by justfsl50
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

expense_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search and filter expenses by query, category, date, amount, or type. Returns matched transactions with total.

Instructions

Search and filter expenses with flexible criteria.

Args: params: SearchInput with optional query, category, dates, amounts, type, limit.

Returns: Formatted list of matching transactions with total.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "expense_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns a 'Formatted list of matching transactions with total,' confirming read-only behavior and output format.

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?

The description is very concise, using only two short sentences to convey purpose and parameters. The Args/Returns structure is clear and no unnecessary words.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the output schema exists and the tool is a straightforward search, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and returns. It mentions the output format, meeting completeness requirements.

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 0% but the description lists key fields (query, category, dates, amounts, type, limit) which adds quick context. The schema already has good descriptions per parameter, so the description provides a helpful summary without repeating details.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states 'Search and filter expenses' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like expense_add (adds), expense_delete (deletes), and expense_summary (aggregates).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

While the description implies this tool is for searching expenses, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like budget_list or expense_insights. However, the sibling names and tool name make usage fairly obvious.

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