Skip to main content
Glama

Caribooks (QuickBooks Online)

get journal report

get_journal_report
Read-only

Generate the QuickBooks journal report 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, ...); 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

A3.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description extensively documents runtime behavior: row types/depth, numeric Money cells, id alignment differences between summary and detail reports, omitted zero rows counted in hidden_zero_rows, filter confirmation semantics, and the no_data flag. This is substantial added behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but economical, packing the entire return contract into two sentences with no filler. However, the second sentence is a long run-on that could be clearer as structured bullets, and 'journal report report' is a minor typo.

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 present, the description fully compensates by specifying the exact return shape, row semantics, id behavior, zero-row handling, filter confirmation, and no_data case. Combined with the 100% schema coverage for parameters, an agent has enough context to invoke and interpret 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 input parameters are already fully described. The tool description adds no extra meaning about start_date, date_macro, columns, or sort parameters; it only describes result behavior. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate the QuickBooks journal report report,' and details the returned structure. It doesn't explicitly contrast the journal report with sibling report tools like get_general_ledger or get_trial_balance, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 guidance is given about when to choose this report over the many sibling report/list tools, nor are any exclusions or alternatives named. The only implied usage is the report name itself.

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