Skip to main content
Glama
vansh216

Expense Tracker MCP Server

by vansh216
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Expense Tracker MCP Server

An MCP (Model Context Protocol) server built with FastMCP for managing and analyzing expenses through AI assistants such as Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, Cursor, and other MCP-compatible clients.

Features

Tools

1. Add Expense

Add a new expense record.

Parameters:

  • date

  • amount

  • category

  • subcategory (optional)

  • note (optional)

2. List Expenses

Retrieve all stored expenses.

3. Get Expenses by Category

Filter expenses by category.

4. Calculate Total Expenses

Calculate the total amount spent.

5. Summarize Expenses

Generate a spending summary including:

  • Total expenses

  • Number of transactions

  • Category-wise spending

  • Highest expense

  • Lowest expense

  • Average expense

Example Response:

{
  "total_expenses": 12500,
  "transaction_count": 45,
  "average_expense": 277.78,
  "highest_expense": 1500,
  "lowest_expense": 50,
  "category_breakdown": {
    "Food": 3500,
    "Transport": 2200,
    "Shopping": 4800,
    "Bills": 2000
  }
}

Related MCP server: Expense Tracker MCP

MCP Resources

expense://categories

Returns available expense categories.

MIME Type:

application/json

Example:

{
  "categories": [
    "Food",
    "Transport",
    "Shopping",
    "Bills",
    "Healthcare",
    "Entertainment",
    "Education",
    "Other"
  ]
}

Project Structure

expense-tracker/
│
├── main.py
├── expenses.db
├── categories.json
├── pyproject.toml
├── README.md
└── .venv/

Installation

git clone <repository-url>
cd expense-tracker
uv sync

Running the MCP Server

uv run fastmcp run main.py

Development mode:

uv run fastmcp run main.py --reload

Example Expense Record

{
  "date": "2026-06-20",
  "amount": 250,
  "category": "Food",
  "subcategory": "Restaurant",
  "note": "Lunch"
}

Database

SQLite is used for storing expenses.

Fields:

  • id

  • date

  • amount

  • category

  • subcategory

  • note

Supported MCP Clients

  • Claude Desktop

  • ChatGPT MCP Clients

  • Gemini MCP Clients

  • Cursor

  • VS Code MCP Extensions

  • Any MCP-compatible MCP client

License

No license specified. All rights reserved by the project owner unless otherwise stated.

Available Tools

3 tools
add_expenseC

Add a new expense entry to the database.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateYes
amountYes
categoryYes
subcategoryNo
noteNo

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'add to the database' without mentioning side effects, validation, idempotency, or return behavior.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence, but it is underspecified and lacks structure or prioritization of key details.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with 5 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, validation rules, or interactions with sibling tools.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no parameter details beyond the names. Parameter meanings are partly inferable but not explicitly described (e.g., date format, amount range, category options).

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 action (add) and the resource (new expense entry) and implies creation. It distinguishes from siblings 'list_expenses' (listing) and 'summarize' (aggregation).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, constraints, or when not to use it.

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

list_expensesB

List expense entries within an inclusive date range.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
start_dateYes
end_dateYes

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; the description only states it lists entries. No disclosure of read-only nature, return volume, or any behavioral traits beyond the basic function.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose with no wasted words.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema or additional context about return format, ordering, or limits. A minimal description that leaves the agent guessing about results.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds 'inclusive date range' giving meaning to the two date parameters. However, no format or validation details are provided.

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 lists expense entries within an inclusive date range, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like add_expense (adding) and summarize (summarizing).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like summarize. No prerequisites or context provided.

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

summarizeB

Summarize expenses by category within an inclusive date range.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
start_dateYes
end_dateYes
categoryNo

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'summarize expenses by category within an inclusive date range', lacking details on what the summary includes (counts, totals?), side effects, or read-only nature.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff. It is concise, but could benefit from a second sentence clarifying output or parameters.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema, no annotations, and only 3 parameters described in one sentence. Lacks details on what the summary returns, how date range is interpreted, and behavior when category is null. Incomplete for effective use.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description mentions date range and category, but does not explain parameter formats, allowed values, or the meaning of 'category' (optional, default null). Insufficient for a 3-parameter tool.

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 action (summarize), resource (expenses), and grouping (by category within an inclusive date range). It distinguishes from sibling tools 'add_expense' and 'list_expenses' nicely.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies use for summarizing expenses, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings or any exclusions. It relies on the tool name and context.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 3 tool updatesv0.1.0
    • First observedadd_expense
    • First observedlist_expenses
    • First observedsummarize
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: adding, listing, and summarizing expenses. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Two tools follow verb_noun pattern consistently, but summarizemissing a noun and pluralization differs (expense vs expenses), which is a minor deviation.

Tool Count3/5

Three tools is borderline low for an expense tracker; while core read and create are covered, it feels slightly under-scoped.

Completeness2/5

Notable missing operations: update and delete for expenses, and no category management. This creates significant gaps in typical expense tracking workflows.

Maintenance

ActivityStale
ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • expense-tracker-remote-mcp

    MuazamAbbas
    F
    license
    B
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A remote MCP server for expense tracking, providing tools to add, list, update, delete expenses, and generate summaries, budget status, and monthly trends.
    8
    -

  • Expense Tracker MCP

    InfoSage05
    F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    MCP server for tracking expenses with local SQLite storage. Provides tools to add, list, and summarize expenses by category.
    -

  • Expense Tracker MCP

    ayush-patel-29
    F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    A simple MCP server for tracking expenses in a local SQLite database, enabling add, read, update, delete, and summarization of expenses with predefined categories.
    -

  • Expense Tracker MCP Server

    shandilya3031
    F
    license
    A
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    MCP server for managing personal expenses, enabling users to add, list, and summarize expenses by category, with data stored in a local SQLite database.
    3
    -

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/vansh216/Expensive_Tracker_MCP_Server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server