Skip to main content
Glama
shaack

mcp-for-money-money

by shaack
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools target completely distinct resources and operations: one exports the account list, the other exports transactions for a specific account. Their purposes are clearly separated with no overlap.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow the exact same verb_noun pattern: export_accounts and export_transactions. The naming is perfectly consistent and predictable.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for what appears to be a specialized MoneyMoney integration, though it may be justified if these are the only needed operations. This is borderline given the narrow domain scope.

    Completeness3/5

    The two tools cover the core data export flows (getting account references and exporting transactions), but there are no update/delete/cancel operations. For a read-only export purpose this may be complete, yet the transaction export lacks flexibility (e.g., no filtering by type, no summary/aggregation options).

  • Average 3.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the output format (plist with bookingDate, amount, name, purpose in booking order per day) and a critical prerequisite: MoneyMoney must be unlocked. This is useful operational context beyond a simple read.

    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?

    The description is concise, covering purpose, output semantics, use-case context, and prerequisites in a few sentences. Slightly dense with technical terms but no wasted 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?

    The description covers the output structure and unlock requirement well. However, it doesn't mention behavior for the CSV format option (a parameter with enum), nor describe error cases (e.g., invalid account name). For a tool with 4 params, no output schema, and no annotations, some gaps remain.

    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 100%, so the schema documents all parameters (dates, account, format). The description adds value by noting the account needs to be the exact name and referencing export_accounts as the source for account names, plus clarifying date inclusivity implicitly. The plist output details supplement what the schema lacks.

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

    Purpose3/5

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

    The description states it exports a Konto's transactions in a date range, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from its sibling tool export_accounts, which could cause confusion about which export tool to use.

    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 indicates it's the target list ('Soll-Liste') for invoice reconciliation, giving some usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs export_accounts, and no exclusion criteria are given.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the unlock requirement as a prerequisite, which is useful operational context. However, it doesn't clarify the read-only nature explicitly or what the exact output format/return value looks like beyond mentioning 'plist', leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

    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 extremely concise at three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence earns its place: what it does, why it's useful, and a key prerequisite. Zero waste.

    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?

    Given the tool has zero parameters, no output schema, and a single sibling tool, the description covers the essential context well. It explains the relationship to export_transactions (which is the main contextual gap a user faces) and the unlock prerequisite. Minor gap: no mention of output format details beyond 'plist', but this is minor for a parameterless listing tool.

    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?

    The tool has 0 parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies here, as there's nothing to compensate for. The description efficiently communicates all the relevant meaning for a parameterless tool.

    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 is specific and clear: it exports the account list from MoneyMoney as a plist file. It explicitly states the purpose is to reveal exact account names for use with the account parameter of the sibling tool export_transactions, which strongly distinguishes it from that sibling.

    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?

    The description states a clear prerequisite ('MoneyMoney muss entsperrt sein' / MoneyMoney must be unlocked) and its usage context (to get exact account names for export_transactions). It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it, but the context of revealing exact account names makes the use case clear given the sibling relationship.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

mcp-for-money-money MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-for-money-money MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/shaack/mcp-for-money-money'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server