Skip to main content
Glama

codat

by io.usefulapi

List bills

codat_list_bills
Read-only

List a company's accounts-payable bills (id, reference, supplierRef, issueDate, dueDate, currency, totalAmount, amountDue, status, lineItems). Codat API: GET /companies/{companyId}/data/bills. 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).

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the description adds value by mentioning the paged envelope response and the API method (GET). However, it does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and listing fields in the first sentence, then adding the API endpoint. 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.

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It mentions the paged envelope but does not explain pagination behavior or structure. The enumeration of fields partially compensates for the missing output schema, but the description could be more thorough.

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 is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides; it merely lists returned fields, which are not parameters.

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 lists a company's accounts-payable bills and enumerates the returned fields (id, reference, supplierRef, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the resource type ('bills') and mentions the exact API endpoint, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for listing bills but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like codat_list_bill_payments or other list tools. No context on prerequisites or exclusions is given.

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