update_expenseMet à jour une charge d'exploitation existante. Seuls les champs fournis sont modifiés (mise à jour partielle). Le montant est en euros.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| amount | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| tva_rate | No | ||
| expense_id | Yes | ||
| description | No | ||
| expense_date | No | ||
| is_dedicated | No | ||
| recurring_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation by clarifying that only provided fields are modified (partial update) and that amounts are in euros. This helps the agent understand the tool's behavior, though it does not disclose error handling or return value specifics.
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 concise—two sentences—and front-loaded with the primary action first. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.
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?
The tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, yet the description only covers the partial update concept and currency. It does not specify return behavior, error cases, or validation rules, leaving the agent without a complete picture of the tool's behavior.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by stating that only provided fields are updated and that amount is in euros. However, it does not explain the meaning of fields like category, tva_rate, is_dedicated, or recurring_type, leaving many parameters underspecified.
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 clearly states the tool 'updates an existing operating expense' (Met à jour une charge d'exploitation existante), identifying both the action (update) and the resource (expense). It distinguishes from siblings like create_expense and delete_expense by explicitly saying 'existing' and specifying partial update.
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?
The description implies usage for modifying an existing expense, and the partial update note clarifies when to use (to change specific fields). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tools such as create_expense or delete_expense, so it falls short of full usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The set contains two almost identical comparison tools: compare_micro_bic and get_simulation both compute micro-BIC vs réel and recommend the best regime. This creates a direct selection conflict. Other tools are mostly distinct, but this overlap is significant.
Tool names follow a verb_noun pattern consistently, with list_properties, create_income, delete_expense, etc. Minor deviations exist such as compare_micro_bic (no standard noun) and the plural/singular mismatch between delete_document and export_documents, but these are easily understood.
With 44 tools, the surface is very large for an MCP server. While the LMNP domain is broad, the number exceeds the typical range and will be hard for agents to navigate efficiently. Some functions could be consolidated (e.g., get_simulation absorbs compare_micro_bic).
The set covers CRUD for properties, incomes, expenses, furniture, and works, plus documents and fiscal computations. However, there is no create/update/delete for loans (only compute and get), no delete_property, and no update for property components. These gaps could block common workflows.