Apply confirmed reconciliation matches to Xero. Marks matched bank transactions as reconciled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| matches | Yes | Array of confirmed statement-to-transaction matches | |
| api_key_hash | Yes | Customer API key hash identifying Xero token |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the core behavior (marking transactions as reconciled) but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, error handling, or permission requirements. While the primary action is clear, it lacks depth about what happens during the operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, the second clarifies the effect. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It omits any reference to workflow prerequisites (e.g., running reconcile_transactions first) or outcomes, but the core functionality is sufficiently described given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters well-described in the schema. The description text does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Apply' with the resource 'confirmed reconciliation matches' and explicitly states the outcome ('Marks matched bank transactions as reconciled'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tool 'reconcile_transactions' by indicating this tool applies already-confirmed matches rather than performing the reconciliation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used after matches are confirmed, as it says 'Apply confirmed reconciliation matches'. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the context of the sibling 'reconcile_transactions' suggests a prior step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with complementary pairs like categorise_expenses (suggest) and apply_categories (apply), reconcile_transactions (match) and confirm_reconciliation (apply). No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., calculate_vat, draft_invoice, send_invoice), but 'health' deviates by being a plain noun, and there is a minor British/American spelling variation ('categorise' vs 'calculate').
9 tools is well-scoped for an accounting MCP, covering VAT calculation, categorization, reconciliation, invoicing, reporting, and health checks without redundancy or bloat.
Core workflows are well-covered, especially the propose/apply pairs for categorization and reconciliation. Minor gaps include lack of invoice read/update actions and no explicit transaction listing, but these are not critical given the server's focus.