Skip to main content
Glama

Caribooks (QuickBooks Online)

get transaction list with splits

get_transaction_list_with_splits
Read-only

Generate the QuickBooks transaction list with splits 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, ...); transaction_type, source_account_type, docnum, name, payment_method, 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

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: row types, depth semantics, id alignment, hidden_zero_rows counting, filter confirmation behavior, and the no_data flag. These details go well beyond the annotations and help an agent interpret the response correctly.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by return structure and edge cases. Every clause serves a purpose, though the single-paragraph format with many semicolon-separated details could be easier to scan if structured.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description thoroughly compensates by explaining the response shape, filtering behavior, and no-data handling. It is nearly complete for a read-only report tool, though it omits explicit guidance on when to use this versus related transaction-list reports.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the params object and company field. The description focuses on return semantics rather than parameter behavior; with full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it generates the QuickBooks transaction list with splits report, with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_transaction_list or get_transaction_list_by_customer, though the 'with splits' qualifier provides some distinction.

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 tool over sibling transaction-list tools, nor any exclusions or alternative routing. The intended use is only implied by the report name and the detailed return semantics.

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