Skip to main content
Glama

Caribooks (QuickBooks Online)

get aged payable detail

get_aged_payable_detail
Read-only

Generate the QuickBooks aged payable detail report. Returns { columns, column_types, rows }: each row has a type (section | data | total), a depth, and values aligned to columns (Money cells as numbers, first cell is the label on summary reports); id is the label cell's QuickBooks record id (e.g. the account); on detail reports ids aligns to values instead. All-zero rows are omitted and counted in hidden_zero_rows. filters lists the filters QuickBooks confirms it applied (a parameter it ignored is absent), and no_data: true means the period has nothing to report.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsNoQuickBooks report query parameters: report_date (YYYY-MM-DD, the as-of date; defaults to today) or date_macro (Today, Yesterday, This Week, Last Week, This Month, Last Month, This Month-to-date, This Fiscal Quarter, Last Fiscal Quarter, This Fiscal Year, Last Fiscal Year, This Fiscal Year-to-date, Last Fiscal Year-to-date, ...); accounting_method (Cash|Accrual); aging_method (Report_Date|Current), aging_period (days per bucket, default 30), num_periods (number of buckets, default 4), past_due (minimum days overdue); start_duedate, end_duedate (YYYY-MM-DD); vendor, term, shipvia; columns (comma-separated, e.g. tx_date,txn_type,doc_num,name,memo,account_name,other_account,due_date,pmt_mthd,is_cleared,dept_name), sort_by (one of those columns), sort_order (ascend|descend).
companyNoWhich connected QuickBooks company to use (name, realm id, or connection id). Optional when only one company is connected.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds rich behavioral detail: return shape, row types, hidden zero-row handling, filters that QuickBooks confirms, and no_data semantics. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: report purpose, return structure, row semantics, id alignment, hidden-zero accounting, filter confirmation, and no-data handling. It front-loads the main purpose and then structures the behavior logically.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining the return value, row types, id alignment, omitted rows, filter confirmation, and empty-period behavior. Nothing necessary to invoke or interpret the tool correctly is missing.

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?

The input schema already covers parameters thoroughly (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that the output's filters field reveals which parameters QuickBooks actually applied, and that ignored parameters are absent. This gives agents useful feedback about parameter behavior.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate the QuickBooks aged payable detail report.' It clearly identifies what the tool produces and distinguishes it from sibling report tools by naming the exact report and report type.

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 like get_aged_payables or get_aged_receivable_detail. The description states what the tool does but does not mention when-not-to-use or provide a routing rule.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources