McpStamp Statement of Account

Plain-text statement of account

statement_text

Read-onlyIdempotent

Turn one client's statement into a plain-text letter for an email: movements in date order, opening and closing balances, deposit held, a sign-off. It is also a .txt download link valid one hour and counts toward the 5 a month; statement_pdf writes the A4 page.

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": {
      "client": "<client>",
      "from": "<from>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "statement_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	Last day of the period, YYYY-MM-DD, inclusive
`from`	Yes	First day of the period, YYYY-MM-DD
`as_of`	No	Date printed on the statement, YYYY-MM-DD. Defaults to today
`client`	Yes	Client id from the invoice server, an exact client name, or a name containing this text
`currency`	No	Only needed when the client has documents in more than one currency. Currencies are never added together
`greeting`	No	Opening line, default "Hello" and the client name
`sign_off`	No	Closing line, default your business name from the shared profile

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 6, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
Changed1 schema field changedNov 6, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedOct 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds substantial non-obvious traits: the .txt download link is valid for one hour, the operation counts toward a 5-per-month quota, and the output is a formatted letter rather than a raw list. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two efficiently structured sentences front-load the core purpose and output components, then pack the link validity, quota, and sibling alternative into a compact second sentence. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains what the returned artifact is (a .txt download link), its validity, quota impact, and content. Together with the fully documented input schema and safety annotations, this gives an agent enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the baseline of 3 applies; the schema already explains client, date range, currency, greeting, and sign_off. The description does not materially deepen parameter meaning beyond noting the output includes a sign-off, so no higher score is warranted.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Turn one client's statement into a plain-text letter for an email' and enumerates the delivered contents, including movements in date order, balances, deposit held, and a sign-off. It also explicitly contrasts with statement_pdf, making sibling differentiation immediate.

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?

It identifies a clear use context (email letter for one client) and names statement_pdf as the A4-page alternative. It does not explicitly rule out other sibling tools such as dunning_text or statements_report, but the plain-text/email framing gives sufficient direction.

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

All McpStamp Statement of Account tools Inspect

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.