Skip to main content
Glama

Caribooks (QuickBooks Online)

get transaction list

get_transaction_list
Read-only

Generate the QuickBooks transaction list 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_duedate, end_duedate (YYYY-MM-DD); customer, vendor, department, name (customer, vendor or employee Ids); transaction_type (Invoice, ReceivePayment, Bill, BillPaymentCheck, Check, CreditCardCharge, Deposit, JournalEntry, Transfer, SalesReceipt, CreditMemo, Estimate, PurchaseOrder, VendorCredit, ...), source_account_type (Bank, AccountsReceivable, AccountsPayable, Income, Expense, CreditCard, ...), docnum, memo, cleared (Cleared|Uncleared|Reconciled), arpaid/appaid (All|Paid|Unpaid), bothamount (an exact amount), payment_method, term, group_by (Name|Account|Transaction Type|Customer|Vendor|Employee|Location|Payment Method|Day|Week|Month|Quarter|Year|None), start_createdate/end_createdate, start_moddate/end_moddate; 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: the exact output structure (columns, column_types, rows), row types, id alignment differences between summary and detail reports, handling of all-zero rows via hidden_zero_rows, the meaning of the filters field, and the no_data flag. This goes well beyond the annotation baseline and helps the agent predict edge cases. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-organized: it starts with the purpose, then details the return structure, and covers special cases (hidden_zero_rows, filters, no_data). Every sentence adds value, and the structure is logical. It is longer than some descriptions, but the complexity of the report output justifies the length. No wasted words.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description fully specifies the return format, row types, cell semantics, id resolution, and edge-case behavior. Parameters are fully documented in the schema. The tool is a read-only report generator, so the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly and interpret the result. It is complete for its purpose.

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%: the params field lists every relevant QuickBooks filter, grouping, and sort option with examples. The description itself adds no additional parameter-specific guidance, so it stays at the baseline of 3. It does not hinder usage, but the description does not elevate parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool generates the QuickBooks transaction list report and specifies the exact return structure. It is distinct from siblings like get_transaction_list_by_customer or get_transaction_list_by_vendor by its general scope, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with these related tools. Still, the verb-resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over its siblings (e.g., get_transaction_list_by_customer, get_transaction_list_by_vendor, get_transaction_detail_by_account). It does not state filters that would route an agent to a more specific report or mention any exclusions. This is a clear gap for an agent selecting among many get_* report tools.

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