OpenCollective MCP Server

oc_list_expenses

Read-onlyIdempotent

List and filter expenses from OpenCollective by status, type, tags, date range, and search term.

Instructions

List expenses for an OpenCollective account with filtering.

Supports filtering by status, type, tags, date range, and search term. Use account_slug to filter by collective, from_account_slug to filter by payee.

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": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "oc_list_expenses"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ctx`	No
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Mar 5, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds little behavioral context beyond stating it lists expenses. The description does not contradict annotations, but it also does not disclose additional traits like pagination behavior or data freshness.

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 only three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers key filtering options and parameter guidance. However, it could mention pagination (limit/offset) or default behavior for completeness.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all parameters, covering their purpose (e.g., 'Filter by status(es): DRAFT, PENDING...'). The description adds minor clarification about account_slug and from_account_slug but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 'List expenses for an OpenCollective account with filtering', which specifies the verb (list), resource (expenses), and scope (with filtering). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like oc_get_expense (single expense) and oc_create_expense by focusing on listing.

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 provides explicit guidance on using key parameters: 'Use account_slug to filter by collective, from_account_slug to filter by payee.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., oc_get_expense for a single expense), though this is implied by the tool name and sibling set.

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