Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
freeagent-mcp-server

freeagent-mcp-server

by samaxbytez
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

freeagent_get_expense

Read-only

Retrieve a single FreeAgent expense by ID to inspect its details and support expense tracking or reconciliation.

Instructions

Get a single expense from FreeAgent by ID

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": {
      "expense_id": "<expense_id>"
    },
    "name": "freeagent_get_expense"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
expense_idYesThe ID of the expense to retrieve

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about behavior for a missing or unauthorized ID, nor about the shape of the returned expense, leaving a gap it could have filled cheaply.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup, though it is so terse that it sacrifices some useful context.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with full schema documentation and safety annotations, the essentials are present. Nothing is said about failure behavior for an unknown ID or about what the expense object contains, which leaves a small but real gap.

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% and the single required parameter is fully documented, so the baseline applies. 'By ID' merely restates that the argument is an identifier, adding no format or sourcing guidance beyond the schema pattern.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a single expense from FreeAgent') and the lookup key ('by ID'). The word 'single' implicitly separates it from freeagent_list_expenses and the create/update/delete siblings, though no sibling is named.

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?

Usage is only implied: retrieving one record when its ID is known. It never states when to prefer this over freeagent_list_expenses or what to do if the ID is unknown, and gives no prerequisites.

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