Skip to main content
Glama

ExpenseBot

by io.github.TotesMagotes

send_report_to_accounting

Review and then post an ExpenseBot report to the owner's accounting destination. STEP 1: call with provider, reportId, and optional mode/mappings, without confirm. The server reads the live report and destination, applies Omit/Personal/split/date/currency rules, checks Zoho bank-feed matches, and returns the complete proposal plus proposalId. NOTHING is posted in step 1. Show the complete proposal and ask for approval. STEP 2: call with only provider, proposalId, and confirm:true. The server posts only the frozen, account-bound proposal, revalidates live state, and rejects changed reports or mappings. Never add mapping fields to the confirmation call. Owner accounts only; acting for a client is not supported. Agent-driven posting is currently available only for Zoho Books (zoho_books); QuickBooks Online, Xero, Wave, and FreeAgent are intentionally not accepted by this tool yet because their previews cannot freeze/revalidate the canonical provider plan that shareReport executes. Use those providers' web flows until they satisfy the full push contract.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoStep 1 only (Zoho Books): automatic document treatment, paid expenses, or bills.
confirmNoStep 2 only: true posts the exact staged proposal. No other options may change.
providerYesAccounting destination provider. Agent-driven posting is currently available only for Zoho Books.
reportIdNoStep 1 only: ExpenseBot report ID owned by the signed-in account.
proposalIdNoStep 2 only: proposalId returned by the read-only preview.
forceRepushNoStep 1 only: explicitly include disclosed uncertain prior outcomes in the frozen proposal.
taxMappingsNoStep 1 only: observed tax-rate string to live destination tax ID overrides.
accountMappingsNoStep 1 only: ExpenseBot category to live destination account ID overrides.
reportingTagMappingsNoStep 1 only: ExpenseBot tag to live destination reporting-tag option.

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. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / mode / description
      Previous value: -"Step 1 only: automatic document treatment, paid expenses, or bills."New value: +"Step 1 only (Zoho Books): automatic document treatment, paid expenses, or bills."
    • changedInput schema / properties / provider / description
      Previous value: -"Accounting destination provider."New value: +"Accounting destination provider. Agent-driven posting is currently available only for Zoho Books."
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / reportingTagMappings / additionalProperties / properties / optionId / description
      Added value: +"Live option ID belonging to tagId, returned in the step-1 proposal."
    • addedInput schema / properties / reportingTagMappings / additionalProperties / properties / tagId / description
      Added value: +"Live accounting-provider reporting-tag ID returned in the step-1 proposal."
  4. Added

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description fully discloses behavioral traits: it explicitly says 'NOTHING is posted in step 1' and that step 2 'revalidates live state, and rejects changed reports or mappings,' covering failure modes. It also explains the provider restriction rationale (previews cannot freeze/revalidate). Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true), but the description carries the burden well, providing far more transparency than the annotations alone.

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 well-structured with clear STEP markers, front-loading the purpose and then detailing the workflow. Every sentence adds value, including the limitation about other providers and the rationale. No redundant or filler sentences exist. It is appropriately detailed for a complex two-step tool without being verbose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, two-step flow, provider restrictions), the description is remarkably complete. It covers all critical aspects: the step-by-step workflow, what happens in each step, constraints, and alternatives. Even without an output schema, the description tells the agent what to expect (a proposal with proposalId) and the confirmation behavior. Nothing an agent needs to use this correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds essential meaning by categorizing each parameter by step (e.g., 'Step 1 only', 'Step 2 only', 'Step 2 only: true posts the exact staged proposal') and explaining behavior (e.g., mode options, forceRepush for uncertain outcomes). This context is not derivable from the schema alone. The description effectively explains the two-phase usage of parameters, which is critical for correct invocation.

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's core function: 'Review and then post an ExpenseBot report to the owner's accounting destination.' It identifies the specific resource (ExpenseBot report) and the action (review and post), and the two-step process differentiates it from sibling tools like share_report or export_report. The title also reinforces the purpose, making it unambiguous for an agent.

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?

The description gives explicit step-by-step instructions: STEP 1 (preview without confirm) and STEP 2 (confirm with proposalId), including what to do after each step ('Show the complete proposal and ask for approval'). It also clearly states when NOT to use the tool (other providers, non-owner accounts, client actions) and directs to alternatives ('Use those providers' web flows'). This is exemplary usage 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