Skip to main content
Glama

codat

by io.usefulapi

List data connections

codat_list_connections
Read-only

List a company's data connections (each links the company to one source platform, e.g. QuickBooks, Xero). Codat API: GET /companies/{companyId}/connections. 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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that it returns 'the paged envelope,' indicating pagination behavior. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but the read-only nature is clear, and the added context is valuable.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence explains the purpose and entity, the second gives the API path and output hint. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only list tool with comprehensive schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate. It explains what a connection is, the company scope, and that results are paged. Slightly missing explicit return value details, but 'paged envelope' suffices.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond summarizing the function; it mentions the endpoint but doesn't elaborate on parameter usage or format beyond the schema. Baseline 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' and the resource 'data connections' for a company, explaining what a data connection is (each links to a source platform like QuickBooks). It also provides the Codat API endpoint, distinguishing it from sibling list tools like codat_list_companies.

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 explicitly states what the tool does (list data connections for a company), providing clear context. It doesn't specify when not to use it or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for a simple list operation given sibling names like codat_get_connection.

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