Caribooks (QuickBooks Online)

get aged receivable detail

get_aged_receivable_detail

Read-only

Generate the QuickBooks aged receivable 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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	No	QuickBooks 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, ...); 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); customer, 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).
`company`	No	Which 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.

First observedSep 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already signal read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: row types, depth, value alignment, id semantics, hidden_zero_rows, filters that QuickBooks confirms applied, and no_data behavior. This is rich, honest behavioral disclosure.

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 well-structured: it opens with the tool's purpose, then explains the return format, and then covers edge cases. Every sentence carries useful information without repetition or filler.

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 carries the full burden of explaining the return shape, and it does so thoroughly: columns, row types, ids, hidden zero rows, filter confirmation, and no_data. Combined with the schema's parameter documentation, an agent has what it needs to call the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 receivable detail report.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_aged_receivables and get_aged_payable_detail by naming the exact report being produced.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not compare itself to get_aged_receivables, get_aged_payable_detail, or other report tools, leaving selection largely to inference from the name.

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

All Caribooks (QuickBooks Online) 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?