Skip to main content
Glama

Caribooks (QuickBooks Online)

get transaction list by vendor

get_transaction_list_by_vendor
Read-only

Generate the QuickBooks transaction list by vendor 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); vendor, department; 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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by thoroughly detailing output behavior: row types, depth, value alignment, Money cell representation, id semantics for summary vs detail reports, omitted all-zero rows with hidden_zero_rows, confirmed filters, and the no_data flag. This gives an agent a clear mental model of the tool's behavior and edge cases.

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: the opening sentence states the action, and the rest efficiently describes return structure and edge cases. It is front-loaded, uses compact notation, and avoids repetition or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of an output schema and the tool's complex return shape, the description does an excellent job explaining return values, row layout, id alignment, and special cases like hidden zero rows and no_data. It is slightly less complete in providing usage context or selecting among sibling reporting tools, but the core call-and-response semantics are well covered.

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?

The input schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some useful context by explaining how filters in the response reflect applied vs ignored parameters, but it does not elaborate further on parameter meanings or combinations beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Generate the QuickBooks transaction list by vendor report.' This is a specific verb and resource, and the 'by vendor' qualifier naturally distinguishes it from sibling report tools such as get_transaction_list_by_customer or get_transaction_detail_by_account.

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?

The usage context is implied by the 'by vendor' phrasing and the report name, so an agent can infer this is for vendor-focused transaction reporting. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool instead of the many closely related sibling list/report tools, nor does it state any exclusions or alternatives.

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