Skip to main content
Glama

Invio Xero MCP

create_xero_timesheet

create_xero_timesheet

Proposes a DRAFT timesheet for one employee/period, for Australian, New Zealand or United Kingdom organisations - it does NOT touch Xero itself, and never will on its own. This queues a pending change that a human must explicitly approve (your Xero MCP connector - the exact link is this response's own approvalUrl field) before Xero is touched at all; you have no way to approve it yourself. employeeId and payrollCalendarId must both come from list_xero_payroll_employees (never invented) - use that SAME employee's own payrollCalendarId field. lines is date-keyed: one entry per day actually worked, each naming an earningsRateId and how many hours. For Australia, use that SAME employee's own ordinaryEarningsRateId (from list_xero_payroll_employees) unless the user names a different rate. For New Zealand and the United Kingdom, an employee record carries no earnings rate of its own - call list_xero_payroll_earnings_rates first and use the RegularEarnings-type rate unless the user names a different one. For New Zealand and the United Kingdom, startDate/endDate must span the employee's WHOLE payroll-calendar period (e.g. Monday to Sunday on a weekly calendar), not just the days actually worked - a shorter period was refused live even though every line inside it was valid; days with no hours simply carry no line (observed live 12 September 2026, not stated in Xero's own spec). The created timesheet starts as a Xero-side DRAFT once approved - a human remains free to review or change it inside Xero afterwards, unlike post_xero_pay_run. This tool cannot say whether Xero will accept the earnings rate or the calendar for this employee - a mismatch is refused, cleanly, only once a human approves.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
linesYesOne entry per day actually worked - omit days with no hours rather than including a zero.
endDateYesEnd of the timesheet period, YYYY-MM-DD. If the user wrote a bare numeric date with no month name ("9/8", "08/09"), do NOT settle it on your own judgement - it is 9 August to most of the world and 8 September in the US, and nothing downstream of this field can tell which you meant once it is a date. Follow the DATES instruction in this tool's description. For New Zealand and the United Kingdom, this period must span the employee's WHOLE payroll-calendar period (for example, Monday to Sunday on a weekly calendar), not just the days actually worked - a shorter period was refused live even though every line inside it was valid. Days with no hours simply carry no line at all; the period itself still has to cover the full calendar cycle. Observed live 12 September 2026, not stated in Xero's own API specification.
startDateYesStart of the timesheet period, YYYY-MM-DD (AU: exactly 7 days including endDate). If the user wrote a bare numeric date with no month name ("9/8", "08/09"), do NOT settle it on your own judgement - it is 9 August to most of the world and 8 September in the US, and nothing downstream of this field can tell which you meant once it is a date. Follow the DATES instruction in this tool's description. For New Zealand and the United Kingdom, this period must span the employee's WHOLE payroll-calendar period (for example, Monday to Sunday on a weekly calendar), not just the days actually worked - a shorter period was refused live even though every line inside it was valid. Days with no hours simply carry no line at all; the period itself still has to cover the full calendar cycle. Observed live 12 September 2026, not stated in Xero's own API specification.
employeeIdYesGet this from list_xero_payroll_employees first - never invent one.
organisationNoThe Xero organisation to use, by its display name. Only needed if this connection reaches more than one organisation - omit it when there is only one.
payrollCalendarIdYesGet this from the SAME employee's own payrollCalendarId field on list_xero_payroll_employees - never invent one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations: it discloses that the tool queues a pending change, never touches Xero itself, cannot be self-approved, results in a Xero-side DRAFT, and that mismatches are refused only after human approval. It even documents an observed live failure (shorter NZ/UK period) that is not in Xero's spec. This is exceptional behavioral detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long, but almost every sentence carries a critical instruction or constraint, and key information is front-loaded in the first sentence. Some repetition exists between the description and the property-level schema descriptions (notably the NZ/UK whole-period rule and date ambiguity), which slightly reduces conciseness but does not undermine usefulness.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given six parameters, no output schema, and a nuanced approval flow, the description covers everything an agent needs: parameter provenance, regional differences, the draft/approval lifecycle, the approvalUrl pointer, and what can go wrong. The absence of an output schema is compensated by explaining the key response element (approvalUrl) and the resulting Xero-side state.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description still adds substantial meaning: the source of employeeId/payrollCalendarId, the requirement to use the SAME employee's payrollCalendarId, the AU ordinaryEarningsRateId rule, the NZ/UK earnings-rate lookup path, and the whole-period startDate/endDate requirement. It also flags ambiguous date interpretation, going well beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Proposes a DRAFT timesheet for one employee/period'), names the exact resource, and scopes it to Australian, New Zealand or United Kingdom organisations. It also makes explicit what the tool does NOT do ('does NOT touch Xero itself') and contrasts itself with post_xero_pay_run, making it clearly distinguishable from siblings.

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 gives strong contextual guidance: it names required prerequisite calls (list_xero_payroll_employees, list_xero_payroll_earnings_rates for NZ/UK), explains that a human must approve via the approvalUrl, and contrasts with post_xero_pay_run. It does not provide an explicit when-to-use vs. every sibling alternative, but the context is concrete and actionable.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources