Skip to main content
Glama

codat

by io.usefulapi

List account transactions

codat_list_account_transactions
Read-only

List a company's account transactions (bank/GL transactions) for a data connection. NOTE: this endpoint is CONNECTION-scoped. Codat API: GET /companies/{companyId}/connections/{connectionId}/data/accountTransactions. Returns the paged envelope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number (default 1).
queryNoCodat query filter string, e.g. "status=Paid" or "modifiedDate>2026-01-01". See docs.codat.io/using-the-api/querying.
orderByNoField to order results by, e.g. "-modifiedDate" (leading "-" for descending).
pageSizeNoRecords per page (1-2000, default 100).
companyIdYesThe Codat companyId (UUID).
connectionIdYesThe Codat connectionId (data connection UUID) within the company.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns a 'paged envelope' and specifies the exact API endpoint. This provides additional behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as pagination behavior and request format.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences covering the resource, scope, notes, and endpoint. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description provides minimal return info ('Returns the paged envelope'). The 6 parameters are well-documented in the schema, and the description gives essential context (scope, endpoint). It is sufficiently complete for a list endpoint with good schema coverage.

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?

All 6 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, except for mentioning the endpoint and scoping. Therefore, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List', the resource 'account transactions (bank/GL transactions)', and the scope 'for a data connection' within a company. It distinguishes from sibling tools like codat_list_accounts or codat_list_invoices by specifying the exact data type.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description includes a note that the endpoint is CONNECTION-scoped, implying the need for a connectionId. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it.

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