Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

More AI - ChatGPT & Claude MCP (Fortnox)

by cloud.amore.accounting
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Create a voucher

propose_create_voucher
Idempotent

Create a voucher. Fortnox API POST /3/vouchers (https://api.fortnox.se/apidocs). Only prepares the change for the person to approve; this tool sends NOTHING to Fortnox, and the answer says how the approved change is sent. Body: {"Voucher": {…}}; required: Description, TransactionDate, VoucherRows[].Account, VoucherSeries.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoThe request body, as Fortnox expects it: an object
financialyearNoFinancial year id, used to determine which financial year the voucher is created in

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / body / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": {},
-    "propertyNames": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "items": {},
-    "type": "array"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": {},
+    "propertyNames": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "items": {},
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "maxLength": 200000,
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / body / description
      Previous value: -"The request body, as Fortnox expects it"New value: +"The request body, as Fortnox expects it: an object"
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / body / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": {},
+    "propertyNames": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "items": {},
+    "type": "array"
+  }
+]
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds important behavior beyond the annotations: it sends NOTHING to Fortnox and only prepares the change for human approval. This is crucial context for a tool whose annotations show readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the action first, then the approval-only behavior, then the required body fields. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly, including the non-execution behavior and required body fields. It could be slightly more complete by naming the follow-up execution alternative.

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%, but the body parameter is a generic object/array/string, so the description adds meaningful nested requirements: Description, TransactionDate, VoucherRows[].Account, and VoucherSeries. It does not describe the financialyear parameter, but the schema already does.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a voucher') and clarifies that it only prepares a change for approval rather than executing it. This distinguishes it from direct write tools in the sibling list, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

It clearly explains the usage context: this tool is for proposing a voucher, sends nothing to Fortnox, and the response explains how an approved change is sent. It does not explicitly name when to choose a sibling such as execute_fortnox_write instead.

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

All More AI - ChatGPT & Claude MCP (Fortnox) 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