Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

YESbusiness

by ch.yesbusiness
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Chart of accounts

list_accounts
Read-onlyIdempotent

The company's BOOKABLE accounts (its chart of accounts without group headers and archived accounts), sorted by number: id, number, name, account_types_id (1 cash and bank, 2 other assets, 3 liabilities, 4 expenses, 5 revenue, 6 equity, 8 year-end result), currencies_id (set on a foreign-currency account) and default_vat_codes_id. Read it before naming an account in a booking or a rule — numbers and names are the company's own, never assume one exists. Static per company; call it once per conversation.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "company_id": "<company_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_accounts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
company_idYesThe company to work on — one of list_my_companies' company_id values.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover read-only/idempotent/closed-world, but the description adds what they cannot: the return fields with account_types_id code meanings (1 cash and bank … 8 year-end result), currencies_id semantics, default_vat_codes_id, sort order, and the exclusion of group headers and archived accounts. The 'static per company; call it once per conversation' caching note is behavior an agent could not derive from annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its scope, then the field list, then the usage imperative, then the caching note. The long field sentence is dense but every element (enum codes, sort order, exclusions) is load-bearing; no filler sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the exact fields returned, their order, and the meaning of the opaque type codes. For a one-parameter, read-only listing tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 100% and the single company_id parameter is already documented as coming from list_my_companies' company_id values. The description adds no further constraint or format detail on that parameter, so the baseline 3 applies, with the field-level metadata instead serving the return-value explanation.

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?

Specific resource plus precise scope: 'the company's BOOKABLE accounts (chart of accounts without group headers and archived accounts), sorted by number', followed by an enumerated field list. It distinguishes itself from sibling read tools by declaring both what it includes and what it excludes.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('Read it before naming an account in a booking or a rule') plus a when-not-to-trust-assumptions warning ('numbers and names are the company's own, never assume one exists'), and a call-frequency directive ('call it once per conversation'). Alternatives for other resources are handled by the sibling names, so nothing critical is left to inference.

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

All YESbusiness toolsInspect
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