Skip to main content
Glama

ExpenseBot

by io.github.TotesMagotes

add_mileage_entry

Log a business mileage trip in ExpenseBot. Useful for realtors, consultants, contractors, and anyone who drives for work. Requires the user to have configured their mileage rate (cents/km or cents/mi) and unit (mi/km) in ExpenseBot Settings. The trip writes a row to their expense spreadsheet with the calculated dollar value. Use the Mileage and travel link from get_spreadsheet_url instead when the user needs Google Maps route calculation, mileage settings, repeated trips, calendar/rideshare import, per diem, or visual review.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagNoTag for client/project attribution (optional)
cityNoCity (optional)
dateNoTrip date (YYYY-MM-DD). Defaults to today.
notesNoOptional user-supplied context stored with the mileage entry.
purposeYesBusiness purpose / description of the trip (e.g., 'Client meeting at 1234 Main St')
categoryNoOverride the user's default mileage category (optional)
distanceYesDistance traveled in the user's configured unit (miles or km)
roundTripNoIf true, doubles the distance (return trip)
destinationNoDestination address or location (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "description": "Standard ExpenseBot tool result envelope. `message` is the human-readable summary the AI cites; `data` is the structured payload (totals, breakdowns, ids, etc.). On failure, `success` is false and `error` carries a code/message/hint triple.",
-  "properties": {
-    "data": {
-      "additionalProperties": true,
-      "description": "Structured payload. Shape varies per tool — common keys: total, breakdown, comparison, sampleMeta, ids, expenseId, reportId, signupUrl, results.",
-      "type": "object"
-    },
-    "error": {
-      "additionalProperties": true,
-      "description": "Present only when success === false.",
-      "properties": {
-        "code": {
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        "hint": {
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        "message": {
-          "type": "string"
-        }
-      },
-      "type": "object"
-    },
-    "message": {
-      "description": "Human-readable result text. Always present on success; prefer rendering this verbatim before any further reasoning.",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "sampleMeta": {
-      "additionalProperties": true,
-      "description": "Set when the underlying dataset was truncated. isTruncated=true means the agent saw a sample of `sampleCount` of `totalCount` rows; aggregate totals are still accurate.",
-      "properties": {
-        "isTruncated": {
-          "type": "boolean"
-        },
-        "sampleCount": {
-          "type": "integer"
-        },
-        "totalCount": {
-          "type": "integer"
-        }
-      },
-      "type": "object"
-    },
-    "success": {
-      "description": "False on tool errors; check before reading `data`.",
-      "type": "boolean"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / notes / description
      Added value: +"Optional user-supplied context stored with the mileage entry."
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive nature (destructiveHint=false). The description adds transparency about the side effect: it writes a row to the user's expense spreadsheet with a calculated dollar amount, and it exposes a prerequisite (configured rate/unit) that could otherwise cause failures. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, then provides context on target users and prerequisites, and ends with concise routing guidance. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or repetition of schema content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having 9 parameters, the input schema fully covers all parameter semantics. There is no output schema, but the description explains the outcome (writes a row, calculates dollar value). It includes prerequisites and alternative usage, so an agent has all necessary information to decide when and how to call the tool correctly.

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% for all 9 parameters, and each parameter has a clear description in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It does not need to compensate for any gaps.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Log a business mileage trip'), explicitly mentions the write effect ('writes a row to their expense spreadsheet with the calculated dollar value'), and differentiates from the sibling get_spreadsheet_url by naming when to use that alternative. This is unambiguous and distinguishes the tool from all siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit usage conditions: requires the user to have configured mileage rate and unit in Settings, and names the alternative (get_spreadsheet_url) with a precise list of scenarios that should route to it (Google Maps route calculation, mileage settings, repeated trips, calendar/rideshare import, per diem, visual review). This is a model example of when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All ExpenseBot toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are explicitly scoped, but several analytics/retrieval tools overlap in purpose, such as get_spending_summary vs get_deep_analytics vs get_monthly_books_review, and generic search vs search_expenses vs search_knowledge. The detailed descriptions help, but an agent still has to carefully choose between near-equivalent options like correct_expenses vs update_expense and the three add_income variants.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names consistently use lower_snake_case with a recognizable verb prefix: get_*, list_*, add_*, create_*, check_*, scan_*, search_*, and whatif_*. Minor exceptions like fetch and search are still terse retrieval verbs rather than a different naming style, so the overall pattern is predictable.

Tool Count1/5

With 59 tools, this exceeds the 50+ threshold for an extreme tool count and creates a heavy selection surface for an agent. Even though ExpenseBot covers many subdomains, many get_/list_/add_ variants could be consolidated into fewer parameterized tools. The count undermines the otherwise clear naming structure.

Completeness3/5

The surface is strong for creating, reading, and updating expenses, reports, invoices, and Gmail scans, but there are notable lifecycle gaps: no delete/void tools for expenses, income, reports, or invoices, and no update tool for income. Several descriptions explicitly redirect unsupported edits to the web app, confirming that the assistant cannot complete those workflows directly.

Resources