Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Fibalo

by de.fibalo
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Bank: Book Transaction

book_transaction
DestructiveIdempotent

Book a payment that has no Beleg of its own.

ohne_beleg books it on a concept with the reason as Eigenbeleg (konzept and reason required); geldtransit is a transfer between own accounts; gebuehr a bank or PayPal fee; vertrag a payment documented by a contract attached with attach_vertrag (konzept required, no reason). For a payment whose Beleg comes later use mark_spaeter_klaeren instead.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "company": "<company>",
      "transaction_id": "<transaction_id>",
      "kind": "<kind>"
    },
    "name": "book_transaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYesohne_beleg, geldtransit, gebuehr or vertrag.
reasonNowhy there is no Beleg, up to 500 characters; required for ohne_beleg.
companyYescompany name or id.
konzeptNocatalog concept (search_konten) for ohne_beleg and vertrag.
transaction_idYesthe payment.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations' mutation, idempotency, and destructiveness signals, the description explains that ohne_beleg records the reason as an Eigenbeleg and that vertrag relies on a contract attached through attach_vertrag. It could be more operationally transparent about the destructive impact or the availability of undo_transaction_booking, but the essential mode-specific behavior is disclosed.

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 front-loads the tool's scope, then uses a compact mode-by-mode explanation and ends with the alternative workflow. Despite the dense semicolon-separated sentence, there is no filler and every clause supports selection or invocation.

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?

For a five-parameter tool with four distinct modes, the description covers scope, mode selection, conditional inputs, a related attachment workflow, and the principal alternative. The fully described input schema, output schema, and annotations supply the remaining structural and safety information, leaving nothing essential for correct invocation undocumented.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the kind schema merely lists its enum values; the description supplies the meaning of all four modes. It also adds important conditional semantics: konzept and reason are required for ohne_beleg, konzept alone for vertrag, and reason must not be used for vertrag.

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 opening sentence gives a specific action, resource, and scope: booking a payment that lacks its own Beleg. The four booking modes and the explicit distinction from mark_spaeter_klaeren further differentiate it from related transaction and clarification tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides concrete selection rules for ohne_beleg, geldtransit, gebuehr, and vertrag, including when konzept and reason are required. It also gives an explicit when-not rule by redirecting payments whose Beleg will arrive later to mark_spaeter_klaeren, and connects vertrag bookings to attach_vertrag.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Fibalo toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources