Skip to main content
Glama

HelloBooks AI Agents MCP Server

by io.github.HelloBooksAIAgents

analyze_qbo_journal_anomalies

Scan a QuickBooks Online "Journal Entries" CSV export for anomalies — currently round-number lines (debit or credit amounts that are exact multiples of $1,000, above a $1,000 materiality threshold). Round numbers are statistically rare in real bookkeeping and frequently indicate estimates, plugs, or fraud signals worth review. Input is raw CSV text from QBO Reports → Accountant → Journal. Max 5,000 rows; max 5 MB. Returns flagged lines with severity ($100K+ high, $10K+ medium, else low) and a shareable URL. Use this when a user pastes QBO data and asks "any anomalies?", "look for round numbers", or "anything suspicious". Tier-0 subset — HelloBooks Phase 3.0 anomaly detection in the paid product additionally catches GL outliers vs entity history, vendor-history mismatches, archived-vendor activity, and AI-narrated suspicious lines (which require the live HelloBooks account).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
csvTextYesRaw CSV text of a QuickBooks Online "Journal Entries" report. Export from QBO: Reports → Accountant → Journal → Export as CSV. Paste the file contents directly.
fileNameNoOptional original filename, used only as a label on the share page.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only (scan/returns), lists constraints (5000 rows, 5 MB), and explains output format. It does not explicitly state no data modification, but the context implies it.

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 a single paragraph of about 7 sentences, front-loading the main purpose. It is efficient with no wasted words, though a bulleted structure could improve scanability.

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?

The description covers all essential aspects: input format, constraints, anomaly detection logic (round numbers, thresholds), severity levels, output (shareable URL), and relationship to paid features. No output schema is present, but the description adequately explains return values.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing detailed context for csvText (e.g., export instructions) and clarifying fileName's role as a label on the share page, going beyond the schema.

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 description clearly states the tool scans QBO Journal Entries CSV for round-number anomalies, specifying input format (CSV text), constraints (max rows/size), and output (flagged lines with severity and shareable URL). It differentiates from siblings by naming the Tier-0 subset and mentioning other capabilities in the paid product.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when a user pastes QBO data and asks "any anomalies?", "look for round numbers", or "anything suspicious".' It also clarifies this is a free subset, but does not explicitly discourage use for other anomaly types or mention alternatives among siblings.

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

All HelloBooks AI Agents MCP Server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are largely distinct, each targeting a specific report type (balance sheet, P&L, trial balance) or functionality. Some overlap exists between QBO and Xero variants, but descriptions clearly differentiate them. Overall, an agent can reliably select the right tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., analyze_balance_sheet, list_articles). A few exceptions like free_tier_eligibility and how_munimji_helps break the pattern but are still readable and predictable.

Tool Count3/5

With 29 tools, the count is on the higher side but justified by the domain's breadth (financial analysis, compliance, migration, pricing, etc.). Some reduction through parameterization (e.g., merging QBO/Xero variants) would improve scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers key areas: financial statement analysis, compliance, migration estimation, feature/pricing info, and partner programs. Missing are direct data manipulation tools (e.g., create/edit journal entries), which may be intentional for a read-only analysis agent.

Resources