get_expense_claimsRetrieve expense claims and reimbursement requests, filtering by status and limiting results.
Get expense claims and reimbursement requests.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 20) | |
| status | No | Filter: draft, submitted, approved, reimbursed, rejected |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond that—it does not mention that it returns a list, supports filtering via status, or any pagination details. It merely restates the tool's purpose without additional behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Get expense claims and reimbursement requests.' It front-loads the action and resource, with zero unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two optional parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'get_expenses', which is a similar tool, nor does it mention any response format or limitations. Given the potential confusion with a sibling, the description is not fully complete for an agent to select it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides descriptions for both parameters (limit with default 20, status with allowed values), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters, so it does not improve on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb+resource: 'Get expense claims and reimbursement requests.' It is specific enough to distinguish from many siblings like get_transactions or get_journal_entries, but there is a close sibling 'get_expenses' that could cause confusion. The description does not explicitly differentiate, so it loses a point for lacking sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_expenses might be a better choice for certain scenarios, nor any context about when expense claims are relevant. The description implies usage but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.