Skip to main content
Glama

List reconciliation links

well_list_reconciliation_links
Read-only

List the reconciliation links of the workspace, newest first. A reconciliation link says that two records belong together: an invoice and the transaction that paid it, a receipt and its card payment, or two rows that are one company. Each row names both sides (type and id), the relationship, how the link came to exist (action), its status (active when confirmed, pending_review when it waits for a person, rejected), the confidence, the reasoning and the review task that decides it, if any.

Use it to answer "what is this invoice matched to?", "which matches wait for my review?" or "why are these two linked?". Pass entity_type and entity_id together to read the links of one record. To confirm or reject a match that waits for review, call well_resolve_reconciliation_task with its review_task_id. Page with cursor from the previous result's next_cursor.

When the token authorizes one workspace, call this directly — no workspace call is needed first. When it authorizes several, this read will not guess which one you mean: pass workspace_id on the call.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoRows to return, at most 50. Default 20.
cursorNoThe next_cursor of the previous page.
statusNoOnly the links in this status: `active` (confirmed), `pending_review` (waits for a person) or `rejected`.
entity_idNoWith entity_type: the public id of the record.
entity_typeNoWith entity_id: only the links that touch this record, on either side. E.g. `invoice`, `transaction`, `company`.
workspace_idNoTarget workspace. Omit when the token authorizes one workspace. Required when it authorizes several: this read reports one workspace's own figures and will not choose which.
conversation_idNoThe conversation id returned by the previous Well result, in its meta under well/conversation_id, in its structuredContent, or in its JSON text block. Pass it back on every call in the same conversation, including a call a card makes, so the chosen workspace and the earlier answers still apply. It decides the conversation on its own: nothing the host states about the session replaces it. Omit it only on the first call of a conversation.
workspace_scopeNoRestrict this call to the family: the token's primary workspace plus the company workspaces under it that you are a member of. Unrelated authorized workspaces drop out of the read; row reads merge across the family, while a per-workspace figure still reports exactly one workspace.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNo
linksNo
successYes
next_cursorNo
conversation_idNoThe conversation this result belongs to. Pass it back as the conversation_id argument on every later Well call in the same conversation.
newly_connectedNoTools that connected to this workspace since the last result and that no session was told about yet, oldest first. Present only when at least one tool is new. The connected-line rule says when to tell an entry; when it does, one line per entry, in the person's language: "<name> is connected.". Never fold several entries into one sentence. Each entry comes back once, on one result only: never repeat its line later.
resolved_workspaceNoThe workspace that answered, when the caller named none and the token authorizes several.
conversation_id_noteNoPresent only when the server opened a fresh lane, stating that no choice recorded earlier was read.
conversation_id_sourceNoWhere the conversation id came from: the host's own request meta, the caller's argument, or a fresh lane the server opened.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed8 schema fields changed
    • removedOutput schema / properties / links / items / properties / review_task_id / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
      -  {
      -    "type": "string"
      -  },
      -  {
      -    "type": "null"
      -  }
      -]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / links / items / properties / review_task_id / type
      Added value: +[
      +  "string",
      +  "null"
      +]
    • removedOutput schema / properties / links / items / properties / updated_at / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
      -  {
      -    "type": "string"
      -  },
      -  {
      -    "type": "null"
      -  }
      -]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / links / items / properties / updated_at / type
      Added value: +[
      +  "string",
      +  "null"
      +]
    • removedOutput schema / properties / next_cursor / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
      -  {
      -    "type": "string"
      -  },
      -  {
      -    "type": "null"
      -  }
      -]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / next_cursor / type
      Added value: +[
      +  "string",
      +  "null"
      +]
    • removedOutput schema / properties / resolved_workspace / properties / name / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
      -  {
      -    "type": "string"
      -  },
      -  {
      -    "type": "null"
      -  }
      -]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / resolved_workspace / properties / name / type
      Added value: +[
      +  "string",
      +  "null"
      +]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say read-only, non-destructive and closed-world; the description adds far more: newest-first ordering, the enumerated status semantics (active = confirmed, pending_review = waits for a person, rejected), what fields each row returns, and the rule that a multi-workspace token makes the read refuse rather than guess. It also documents cursor pagination and the conversation_id continuity contract, none of which annotations convey.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and definition before use cases, routing and workspace mechanics — a sensible order. It runs four paragraphs, and the workspace paragraph restates what the workspace_id schema field already says, which is the only real slack.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return fields, and it still sketches what each row contains. For an 8-parameter, zero-required read tool, it covers ordering, filtering, paging, ambiguity resolution and the follow-up mutation path — an agent could call it correctly without opening the schema.

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% and the parameter descriptions already carry the pairing rule, the next_cursor provenance and the workspace-authorization condition, so this dimension is largely baseline. The description nonetheless reinforces the pairing as a usage rule ("pass entity_type and entity_id together") and frames cursor as coming from the previous result, which helps an agent chain calls rather than guess formats.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource plus ordering ("List the reconciliation links of the workspace, newest first") and then defines the domain concept itself — which two record types a link joins and what each row carries. That definition makes it trivially separable from the singular sibling well_get_reconciliation_link and from matching-related lists such as well_list_possible_double_debits.

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?

Names the concrete questions it answers ("what is this invoice matched to?", "which matches wait for my review?", "why are these two linked?"), states the entity_type+entity_id pairing rule for per-record reads, and explicitly routes the mutating step to well_resolve_reconciliation_task by review_task_id. It also covers both token shapes, telling the agent exactly when workspace_id is required.

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