freeagent-mcp-server

freeagent_list_expenses

Read-only

Retrieve and filter FreeAgent expenses by view, date range, project, or update time to reconcile spending and locate specific records.

Instructions

List expenses from FreeAgent with optional filtering by view, date range, and project

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number to fetch (default 1)
`view`	No	Filter expenses by view
`project`	No	Filter by project URL
`to_date`	No	End date filter (YYYY-MM-DD)
`per_page`	No	Results per page (default 25, max 100). Check pagination.next_page in the response for more results.
`from_date`	No	Start date filter (YYYY-MM-DD)
`updated_since`	No	Only return expenses updated since this ISO 8601 timestamp

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv3.0.0Nov 6, 2026

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

addedInput schema / properties / page

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Page number to fetch (default 1)",
+  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / per_page

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Results per page (default 25, max 100). Check pagination.next_page in the response for more results.",
+  "maximum": 100,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

First observedv1.3.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

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 only the optional-filter framing and says nothing about pagination behavior, default page sizes, or what a returned collection looks like — real gaps for a list endpoint, though less costly given the annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is arguably too terse for a seven-parameter list tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only list tool whose schema fully documents every parameter and whose annotations cover mutability and world scope, the description is nearly sufficient. The only meaningful omission is pagination guidance (despite per_page referencing pagination.next_page) and a hint about the returned expense collection.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters (including page, per_page, updated_since, and the view enum) are already documented with formats and defaults. The description names only three of the seven filters and adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List expenses from FreeAgent") and scopes it with the available filters, so an agent can tell it apart from get_expense or create_expense. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

"Optional filtering by view, date range, and project" implies when the tool is useful and makes clear all filters are optional (matching the zero required parameters). There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of paginating to exhaustion, and no pointer to freeagent_get_expense for single-record retrieval.

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

Deploy Server