Mintline MCP Server

list_matches

Retrieve match candidates between receipts and transactions. Filter by status and minimum confidence to review proposed matches or confirmed/rejected history.

Instructions

List matches. Retrieve match candidates between receipts and transactions. Use this to review proposed matches or see confirmed/rejected history.

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": {
      "limit": "<limit>",
      "offset": "<offset>"
    },
    "name": "list_matches"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	Yes	Items per page
`offset`	Yes	Pagination offset
`status`	No	Filter by status
`minConfidence`	No	Minimum confidence score (0-1)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedv1.1.9May 6, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / limit / default
```
Added value: +50
```

changedInput schema / properties / limit / description

Previous value: -"Max results to return (default 20)"New value: +"Items per page"

changedInput schema / properties / limit / type

Previous value: -"number"New value: +"integer"

addedInput schema / properties / minConfidence

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Minimum confidence score (0-1)",
+  "type": "number"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / offset

Added value: +{
+  "default": 0,
+  "description": "Pagination offset",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / status / description

Previous value: -"Filter by match status (default: proposed)"New value: +"Filter by status"

addedInput schema / required

Added value: +[
+  "limit",
+  "offset"
+]

First observedv1.1.0Feb 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation but does not mention pagination, rate limits, or authorization requirements. The description is adequate for a simple list tool but lacks detail beyond the obvious.

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 concise with two sentences. Front-loaded with the action 'List matches', then provides immediate context and use cases. No unnecessary words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose but does not explain the return structure or pagination behavior. For a list tool this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

The description clearly states the tool lists matches and retrieves match candidates between receipts and transactions, with use cases for reviewing proposed or confirmed/rejected history. It distinguishes from siblings like 'confirm_match' but does not explicitly differentiate from 'get_transaction_matches' or 'unmatch_transaction'.

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 description implies usage for reviewing match history but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are named, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tool names.

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