Skip to main content
Glama

codat

by io.usefulapi

List suppliers

codat_list_suppliers
Read-only

List a company's suppliers/vendors (id, supplierName, contactName, emailAddress, addresses, status, defaultCurrency). Codat API: GET /companies/{companyId}/data/suppliers. 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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, consistent with a read operation. The description adds that it returns a 'paged envelope', hinting at pagination behavior. No contradictions, but no additional behavioral details beyond 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 concise sentences with no redundancy. First sentence covers purpose and key fields, second gives API endpoint and return type. Front-loaded with essential information.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description adequately states return type ('paged envelope') and lists fields. Parameters are fully documented. Slightly lacking in depth but sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema fully documents parameters. The description adds context about returned fields but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 explicitly states the verb 'List', the resource 'suppliers/vendors', and the scope 'a company's'. It lists specific fields returned, making it clear what the tool does. The tool name and description distinguish it from sibling tools like codat_list_customers.

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 usage for listing suppliers but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The context from sibling tools helps, but the description lacks explicit guidelines.

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