Skip to main content
Glama

Invio Xero MCP

get_xero_outstanding_receivables

get_xero_outstanding_receivables
Read-only

Who owes this business money in Xero right now, and how much - aggregated per contact from unpaid and partially-paid sales invoices (Type ACCREC, Status AUTHORISED). Read-only. Chosen over Xero's own AgedReceivablesByContact report because that report requires naming ONE contact per call and cannot answer an organisation-wide question. Amounts are grouped by currency (a Xero organisation can invoice in more than one) - if currencies has more than one entry, report each currency total separately rather than adding them together. truncated: true means more unpaid invoices exist than this tool scanned; say so rather than presenting the totals as exhaustive. unusableAmountCount (when greater than 0) means that many AUTHORISED sales invoices had no reliable amount-due figure from Xero and were EXCLUDED from every total, count and contact below - say so too, and never treat them as paid off just because they are absent from the numbers. OVERDUE MEANS THE DUE DATE IS STRICTLY BEFORE overdueAsOf, the calendar day this call was measured against: an invoice due ON that day is NOT overdue and is not in overdueTotal, because the customer still has that whole day to pay. timeZone is the zone that day was computed in and timeZoneSource says where it came from: 'organisation' means it is the organisation's own timezone from Xero, and any other value means Xero did not give one and the day was computed in UTC instead, so an invoice due within a day of now may be classified against a date up to a day away from the organisation's own. Do not recompute overdue yourself from oldestDueDate and your own clock - your clock is not the organisation's.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with the stated "Read-only". Beyond annotations, the description discloses the pagination/scan limit behind `truncated`, the exclusion of invoices with no reliable amount due, the strict-before rule for overdue, and the timezone source fallback to UTC — all behavioural traits annotations do not carry.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and every subsequent sentence carries real semantics rather than filler. It is dense and runs long — several 'do not do X' warnings could be tightened — but nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return shape, and it does: `currencies`, `truncated`, `overdueTotal`, `overdueAsOf`, `timeZone`, `timeZoneSource`, `unusableAmountCount`, `oldestDueDate`. It also warns against recomputing overdue from the agent's own clock, which is exactly the failure mode this tool would otherwise invite.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Only one optional parameter (`organisation`), and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, including the omit-when-single-organisation guidance. The description adds nothing further to the parameter itself — correct baseline is 4 for a near-zero-param tool.

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 opens with a plain-language question the tool answers ("Who owes this business money in Xero right now, and how much") and then specifies the exact data source and filters: aggregated per contact, unpaid/partially-paid ACCREC invoices with Status AUTHORISED. This is specific enough to distinguish it from list_xero_invoices and from Xero's own receivables reporting, which it explicitly names.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It names the alternative (AgedReceivablesByContact) and states the concrete reason it loses here — that report requires naming ONE contact per call and cannot answer an organisation-wide question. It also tells the agent how to interpret edge cases (`truncated`, multiple currencies, `unusableAmountCount`) rather than leaving them to guess.

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