Smart Expense Management MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

add_recurring

Automate recurring expenses by setting frequency and next due date. The tool creates expense entries automatically when each occurrence is due.

Instructions

Add a recurring expense that auto-creates entries when due. frequency: 'daily' | 'weekly' | 'monthly' | 'yearly' next_due_date: YYYY-MM-DD

Examples: Netflix monthly ₹199, Gym monthly ₹1500, Rent monthly ₹8000

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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "amount": "<amount>",
      "frequency": "<frequency>",
      "next_due_date": "<next_due_date>"
    },
    "name": "add_recurring"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`title`	Yes
`amount`	Yes
`frequency`	Yes
`category_id`	No
`next_due_date`	Yes
`payment_method`	No	Cash

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that entries are auto-created when due and specifies format constraints, but lacks details on triggers (e.g., manual process_recurring), permissions, or side effects of updates.

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: two functional sentences plus format hints and examples. No redundant or missing words; every part adds value.

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 6 parameters and an output schema, the description covers core parameters but omits behavioral constraints (e.g., duplicates) or clarification that output schema exists. Adequate for a simple creation tool but not fully complete.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context for 4 of 6 parameters: frequency (with enum values), next_due_date (format), title and amount (via examples). Category_id and payment_method are not described.

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?

The description clearly states the tool adds a recurring expense that auto-creates entries when due, distinguishing it from one-time expense creation tools like create_expense or add_event_expense.

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 recurring expenses like subscriptions or rent via examples, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions.

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