Skip to main content
Glama

ExpenseBot

by io.github.TotesMagotes

update_expense

Destructive

Update a single existing expense row's category, tag, merchant, or business purpose (e.g. 'recategorize expense X to Meals' or 'tag it Client – Acme'). Identify it only by the exact expenseId returned by search_expenses (the full Receipt ID from Column Q). Never use a date, displayed number, or sheet row number as expenseId. Two-phase operation: calls with confirm omitted or false return a preview of the current→proposed change and make no change. After user confirmation, a call with confirm:true applies the proposed change. Only category/tag/merchant/businessPurpose are editable — amounts, dates, and notes are not editable via the assistant. Does not create or delete rows.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsYesPartial update object. Include one or more of these optional keys; omit every field that should remain unchanged.
confirmNoOmit or false = preview only (no write). Must be exactly true to apply the change.
expenseIdYesExact full Receipt ID from Column Q, returned as expenseId by search_expenses.

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by explaining the two-phase operation: confirm omitted or false returns a preview with no change, and confirm:true applies the change. It also makes explicit constraints ('Only category/tag/merchant/businessPurpose are editable', 'does not create or delete rows'). This gives the agent a precise mental model of the side effects, while destructiveHint is true, so the extra transparency is valuable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but every sentence adds information: the resource, the ID requirements, the two-phase preview, the editable fields, and exclusion of create/delete. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is longer than typical but each clause earns its place given the tool's mutating behavior and confirmation flow.

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?

For a mutating tool with three parameters, no output schema, and a complicated two-phase flow, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly how to invoke it (with/without confirm), what can be changed, what cannot be changed, and what ID to use. Nothing essential is missing for a correct call.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including partial update semantics for fields and the confirm boolean. The description adds crucial context beyond the schema: expenseId must be the exact full Receipt ID from Column Q returned by search_expenses, and it warns against using a date, displayed number, or sheet row number. That elevates it above the baseline 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update a single existing expense row's category, tag, merchant, or business purpose.' It then immediately clarifies the exact ID required and explicitly says it does not create or delete rows, distinguishing it from sibling add/delete tools. This gives a precise, unambiguous purpose.

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 provides explicit guidance: identify the expense only by the exact expenseId from search_expenses, never by date/displayed number/row number. It also states the two-phase confirmation workflow and which fields are editable (category/tag/merchant/businessPurpose) with a clear warning that amounts, dates, and notes are not editable. It even notes that it does not create or delete rows, so an agent knows when not to pick it.

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