stub

Save journal entry

save_journal_entry

Create or update a journal entry. Pass an id to update it; omit id to create a new one. Returns the new journal entry id on create. To create/update many at once, send an items array — one all-or-nothing transaction with a single ledger recompute; each item with an id updates, each without creates.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Journal entry id. Present → update; omit → create a new one.
`date`	No	Journal entry date (ISO 8601).
`name`	No	Description of the journal entry.
`items`	No	Vector of journal entry objects to create/update in one all-or-nothing batch. Preferred over repeated calls. Each item with an id updates; each without creates.
`lines`	No	Journal lines. Each line debits or credits one account; total debits must equal total credits.
`notes`	No	Free-text notes.
`amount`	No	Total amount of the journal entry.
`opening`	No	Whether this is an opening balance entry.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 16, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / items / items / properties / lines / items / required
```
Previous value: -[
-  "accountid",
-  "debit",
-  "credit"
-]New value: +[]
```
- changedInput schema / properties / lines / items / required
```
Previous value: -[
-  "accountid",
-  "debit",
-  "credit"
-]New value: +[]
```
First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses mutation semantics, the all-or-nothing transaction behavior, the single ledger recompute, and the return of the new id on create. Annotations already establish that this is not read-only and not necessarily destructive; the description adds useful behavioral context without contradicting them.

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 three dense sentences with no filler. The core create/update behavior is front-loaded, and the batch guidance and return behavior each earn their place.

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?

The description covers create/update behavior, batch operation, atomicity, and return behavior on single create. However, it does not specify return values for updates or batches, nor how top-level fields interact with the items array, leaving minor gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by clarifying the id presence/absence convention and framing the items array as a single atomic transaction with one ledger recompute. This goes beyond the per-field schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (create or update) and resource (journal entry), and also covers the batch variant. It does not explicitly contrast with line-level siblings such as add_journal_line or update_journal_line, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiating.

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 usage guidance: pass an id to update, omit it to create, and use the items array for many-at-once writes with an all-or-nothing transaction. It does not state when not to use this tool versus line-level alternatives, but the context is otherwise clear.

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

All stub tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?