Skip to main content
Glama

Caribooks (QuickBooks Online)

search recurring transactions

search_recurring_transactions
Read-only

Search recurring transaction records in QuickBooks Online. A template QuickBooks uses to create a transaction on a schedule, or on request.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
companyNoWhich connected QuickBooks company to use (name, realm id, or connection id). Optional when only one company is connected.
criteriaNoCriteria accepts: an array of {field, value, operator} objects (operators: =, <, >, <=, >=, LIKE with % wildcards, IN), a simple {Field: value} object, or {criteria: [...], asc|desc: "Field", limit, offset, count}. Filters are ANDed; QuickBooks has no OR, cannot filter on Line fields, and only filters top-level fields (TxnDate, DocNumber, CustomerRef, VendorRef, Balance, TotalAmt, DueDate, MetaData.LastUpdatedTime, ...). Field names and values are case-sensitive as QuickBooks stores them. Government identifiers, birth dates and card-processing details are not available through these tools. One call returns one page of at most 1000 records, and a large page is truncated to fit the answer: narrow with filters or walk it with limit and offset rather than asking for everything. Each result wraps the template's transaction under its type (Invoice, Bill, ...) with RecurringInfo. Omit to return the first page of all recurring_transaction records.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnly and non-destructive, and the description adds no behavioral details beyond defining what a recurring transaction is. It does not disclose pagination, OR limitations, or filtering constraints; those live only in the schema.

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?

Two short sentences with the operation front-loaded. The second sentence adds domain context but is not strictly required; still, nothing is wordy or misplaced.

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?

The rich criteria schema compensates for the sparse description, covering pagination, filters, operators, and result wrapping. The description itself is thin, but the schema fills the practical gaps for an agent making a call.

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 schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds nothing about the company or criteria parameters beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search recurring transaction records in QuickBooks Online') and clarifies the entity as a template for scheduled/on-request transactions. It is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_recurring_transaction.

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 description-level guidance explains when to use search vs. get_recurring_transaction or any other alternative. The intended usage must be inferred from the tool name and generic search 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