Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
moneylover-mcp

moneylover-mcp

by thanquannguyen
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Get Wallets

get_wallets

List wallets available to the authenticated MoneyLover user so MCP clients can select accounts for transaction queries and additions.

Instructions

List wallets available to the authenticated user.

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": "get_wallets"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenNoJWT token returned by login, or derived from environment credentials

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only, user-scoped listing and hints at auth via "authenticated user", but says nothing about ordering, pagination, whether balances or archived wallets are included, or what an empty result means—gaps that matter more here because there are zero annotations to fall back on.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero redundant or filler wording. Nothing needs to be trimmed.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description is close to sufficient for correct invocation. However, with no annotations or output schema, an agent still lacks information about return contents and result-set behavior, which the one-line description does not cover.

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% and the single optional token parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including the login/environment-credential fallback. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource ("List wallets") and scopes it to "the authenticated user", which distinguishes it from data-retrieval siblings like get_transactions and get_categories. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or exclusion, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to sibling tools such as login (which presumably yields the token). An agent must infer the call context entirely from the tool name and the single sentence.

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