Skip to main content
Glama

Invio Xero MCP

list_xero_accounts

list_xero_accounts
Read-only

This organisation's chart of accounts from Xero. Read-only; nothing is created or changed. Some accounts, most often a bank account, have code: null - Xero genuinely has no code for them; use that account's exact name instead wherever a tool accepts one (create_xero_payment's own bankAccountName), never invent a code for it. Use this BEFORE proposing an accountCode on a create_xero_invoice or update_xero_invoice line item - accountCode must be a real code from this list, never invented or guessed (an invented code is rejected before you can even propose the change). If none obviously fits, omit accountCode entirely: for a DRAFT invoice a human fills it in later in Xero; for an AUTHORISED invoice (the default), this connector fills in the organisation's own single active default account automatically when there is exactly one, or asks you to choose from this list when there is more than one. taxType here is each account's OWN default tax type - a useful hint, but not the exhaustive list of every tax rate this organisation has configured, so a line item is free to use a different valid one; if unsure, omit taxType too. Prefer accounts with status ACTIVE for a new line item - an ARCHIVED code still exists but Xero may refuse to post to it, and on an AUTHORISED invoice this connector refuses one outright rather than risk that.

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: null `code` values are genuinely absent in Xero, invented codes are rejected pre-proposal, ARCHIVED accounts may be refused by Xero and are refused outright by this connector on AUTHORISED invoices. `taxType` is scoped as a per-account default rather than the org's exhaustive rate list.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool is and its read-only nature, then the operational rules. The long middle sentence following the null-`code` explanation is dense and could be split, but every sentence carries actionable content rather than repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining the shape of the returned data (`code`, `name`, `taxType`, `status`) and how each field should be used downstream. An agent has everything it needs to call this and interpret the result.

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?

There is one parameter (`organisation`) at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries its meaning (display name, omit when single org). The description adds nothing about it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: this organisation's chart of accounts from Xero, plus an explicit read-only statement. It is immediately distinguishable from the many create_/update_/get_ siblings because it frames itself as the lookup source those tools depend on.

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?

Gives explicit ordering ('Use this BEFORE proposing an accountCode on a create_xero_invoice or update_xero_invoice line item'), names the fallback when nothing fits (omit accountCode), and explains what happens in each case (DRAFT filled by human, AUTHORISED auto-filled or prompted). It also names create_xero_payment's bankAccountName as the place to use `name` instead of `code`.

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