Skip to main content
Glama

Caribooks (QuickBooks Online)

get inventory valuation detail

get_inventory_valuation_detail
Read-only

Generate the QuickBooks inventory valuation 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: start_date, end_date (YYYY-MM-DD) 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, ...); start_svcdate/end_svcdate or svcdate_macro, group_by; 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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses the exact row shape, row-type/depth semantics, id alignment behavior, omission of all-zero rows with hidden_zero_rows count, and the fact that filters contains only QuickBooks-confirmed filters. This is substantial non-obvious behavior an agent needs to interpret output correctly.

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 front-loaded with the action and return shape, then uses compact clauses to convey row types, id alignment, zero-row handling, filter confirmation, and no_data. No sentence is wasted and the structure mirrors the data hierarchy it describes.

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 return values, and it covers columns/types/rows, row kinds, id semantics, hidden zero rows, filter confirmation, and empty-period signaling. For a read-only report tool, remaining gaps such as auth and error details are minor and not needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% and the params property already documents date macros, group_by, columns, sort_by, and sort_order. The description adds meaning by explaining that unconfirmed/ignored parameters are absent from the returned filters list and that no_data signals an empty period, which helps agents reason about parameter effects.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Generate the QuickBooks inventory valuation detail report.' The 'detail' wording and row semantics distinguish it from get_inventory_valuation_summary, but the description never names that sibling or states the selection criterion, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative routing in the description. The only signal is the report's name and the word 'detail', so usage is implied for line-level inventory valuation rather than clearly stated.

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