Skip to main content
Glama

ExpenseBot

by io.github.TotesMagotes

get_expense_splits

Read-only

Show how an expense was split across categories, clients, properties, or business vs personal portions. Returns the single parent payment with its nested allocation lines — split lines are never counted as separate expenses, so totals stay correct. Examples: 'how is that expense split', 'what was the business portion of that bill', 'show the allocation for this receipt'. Read-only — splits are edited in ExpenseBot's Review workspace.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax parent expenses to return (default 25, max 100).
dateRangeNoOptional open-ended or closed window to search for split expenses. Supply startDate, endDate, or both; supplied bounds are inclusive YYYY-MM-DD dates.
onlySplitNoReturn only expenses with active splits (default true). Set false to inspect an unsplit Receipt ID.
receiptIdNoOptional Receipt ID for one expense.
clientEmailNoClient account email. Accountants may use this only for an accepted ExpenseBot client.

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. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / dateRange / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedInput schema / properties / dateRange / description
      Previous value: -"Optional window to search for split expenses. Both bounds inclusive, YYYY-MM-DD."New value: +"Optional open-ended or closed window to search for split expenses. Supply startDate, endDate, or both; supplied bounds are inclusive YYYY-MM-DD dates."
    • addedInput schema / properties / dateRange / properties / endDate / format
      Added value: +"date"
    • addedInput schema / properties / dateRange / properties / startDate / format
      Added value: +"date"
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only'. It also adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: split lines are never counted as separate expenses, totals stay correct, and returns the parent payment with nested allocation lines. This helps the agent understand aggregation semantics and avoid double-counting.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core behavior, and each sentence earns its place. The example queries are useful for triggering, the parent-line clarification prevents stat aggregation errors, and the read-only note is useful for usage boundaries.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description supplies the key return concept: a single parent payment with nested allocation lines, while split lines remain ignored. Parameter behavior and examples are covered. The main minor gap is that it doesn't spell ou tthe exact top-level return shape or any empty-response behavior, but the description is still sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

All 5 parameters are already fully described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds the important semantic concept of 'parent' expenses but does not explain limit, dates, reimbursable filtering, amount, or clientEmail beyond what the schema already provides. That is sufficient but not additive.

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 exactly what the tool does: it shows how an expense was split across categories, clients, properties, or business/personal portions. It goes beyond a name-level restatement by explaining that results are parent payments with nested allocation lines, and the example queries make the intended use unmistakable.

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 gives concrete example prompts ('how is that expense split', 'what was the business portion of that bill') and notes that splits are edited only in ExpenseBot's Review workspace, giving the agent a clear context for when this read tool is right. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or say when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing 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