Skip to main content
Glama

codat

by io.usefulapi

Create a company

codat_create_company
Destructive

MUTATES Codat data — create a new company (a container for a customer's data connections). Provide a name; optionally a description, tags, or other attributes via fields. Codat API: POST /companies. Returns the created company (incl. its id).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesA human-readable name for the company (usually your customer's business name).
fieldsNoAdditional raw Codat fields merged into the request body (escape hatch for any field not typed above).
descriptionNoOptional description / notes for the company.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate 'destructiveHint: true'. The description adds value by explicitly mentioning 'MUTATES Codat data', specifying the API endpoint, and stating the return includes the company's id. This context complements the annotation without contradiction.

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 sentences cover the essential information: what the tool does, what parameters to use, and the expected return. No redundant words; every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Despite no output schema, the description mentions the return value (created company with id). It includes the HTTP method and endpoint, which aids understanding. It could elaborate on error behavior, but for a straightforward creation tool, this is sufficient.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining 'fields' as an escape hatch for additional attributes, which the schema only describes generically. This provides extra context beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 verb 'create' and resource 'company', defining it as a container for data connections. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'codat_create_connection' by specifying the core entity being created.

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 hints at usage by stating required parameters (name) and optional ones (description, tags via fields). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools like 'codat_create_connection' or provide when-not-to-use guidance, preventing a perfect score.

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

All codat 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action (e.g., companies, connections, invoices, financial statements). Even similar-looking tools like the three financial statements are clearly differentiated by their names and descriptions. No overlapping purposes.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the consistent pattern 'codat_verb_noun' (e.g., codat_create_company, codat_list_invoices, codat_get_balance_sheet). No mixing of styles or irregular naming.

Tool Count5/5

28 tools cover the main read and refresh operations across Codat's domain (companies, connections, accounting data, integrations). The count feels well-scoped for a data aggregation platform, not excessive.

Completeness3/5

The tool set focuses heavily on reading and listing data, with only create for companies/connections and refresh triggers. Missing update/delete for many entities (e.g., invoices, bills). An escape hatch exists but is GET-only. Notable gaps for write workflows.

Resources