OpenCollective MCP Server

oc_list_transactions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve and filter ledger transactions for an OpenCollective account, showing credits, debits, and linked expenses or orders.

Instructions

List transactions for an OpenCollective account (the ledger).

Shows credits and debits with amounts, descriptions, linked expenses/orders. Supports filtering by type (CREDIT/DEBIT), date range, kind, and search term.

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_transactions"
  }
}

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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it 'shows credits and debits' but does not elaborate on rate limits, permissions, or response structure beyond what annotations imply.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses two readable sentences. Every sentence is informative without padding.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description covers what the tool returns and filtering capabilities. However, it omits mention of pagination (limit/offset) which is in the schema but not described.

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 high (most parameters have descriptions in the schema). The tool description redundantly lists filtering types (type, date range, kind, search term) but adds no new semantic information 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 the tool lists transactions for an OpenCollective account and mentions specific fields (amounts, descriptions, linked expenses/orders). It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on invoices, expenses, or accounts.

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 implies usage for viewing the full ledger with filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like oc_list_expenses or oc_get_expense. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative names provided.

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