Skip to main content
Glama

Beancount.io

by io.beancount
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Map Bank Account To Ledger Account

mapBankAccount
DestructiveIdempotent

Point a linked bank account at a ledger account; replaces any existing mapping.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ledgerNoTarget ledger as owner/name. Required for an unpinned credential; defaults to the credential's ledger restriction.
accountIdNoThe linked bank account's id.
account_idNoAlias of accountId.
ledgerAccountNoThe ledger account to map it to.
ledger_accountNoAlias of ledgerAccount.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
errorNo
resultNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / accountId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The linked bank account's id.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / account_id / description
      Previous value: -"The linked bank account's id (account_id)."New value: +"Alias of accountId."
    • addedInput schema / properties / ledgerAccount
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The ledger account to map it to.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / ledger_account / description
      Previous value: -"The ledger account to map it to."New value: +"Alias of ledgerAccount."
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "account_id",
-  "ledger_account"
-]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the concrete payload: an existing mapping is replaced, which tells the agent this is an overwrite rather than an additive link. It omits permission/auth requirements and any warning that all parameters are optional, keeping it below 5.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, action front-loaded and the destructive consequence attached with a semicolon. Nothing redundant or padded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists and annotations carry safety semantics, so the description needn't explain returns. However, with zero required parameters and duplicate alias parameters, the description should clarify what happens when ledgerAccount or accountId is omitted, which it does not.

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 ledger, accountId, ledgerAccount and their aliases are fully documented in structured fields. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is acceptable at high coverage but earns only the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb ('Point ... at') and both resources (linked bank account, ledger account), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not name or contrast with the nearest sibling (reconcileBankAccounts), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (bank connection must exist, ledger must exist), and no mention of alternatives such as reconcileBankAccounts or setBankAccountCurrency. The tool's purpose is inferable, but the agent gets no routing help.

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

All Beancount.io 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