Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Invio Xero MCP

by nz.co.invio
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

list_xero_payments

list_xero_payments
Read-only

List payments already recorded in Xero for the current organisation, optionally filtered by status (AUTHORISED or DELETED), by which invoice they were applied to, and by date range (fromDate/toDate, both inclusive). Read-only; nothing is created or changed - to RECORD a new payment, use create_xero_payment instead. amount is in the linked invoice's own currency, never assume it matches this user's Invio business currency. invoiceId/invoiceNumber are present only when this payment was applied to an invoice specifically - Xero also lets a payment be applied to a credit note, a prepayment or an overpayment, and this tool relays whichever is true rather than guessing. Returns up to 100 payments for the requested page; if pageCount shows more pages than were returned, say so rather than implying this is the full list. The result always echoes back exactly which filters were applied (appliedFilters) - relay that, not just your own memory of what you asked for.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo1-based page number - Xero returns up to 100 payments per page. Omit for page 1.
statusNoFilter to one Xero payment status: AUTHORISED (the normal, recorded state) or DELETED (reversed). Omit for both.
toDateNoOnly include payments dated ON OR BEFORE this date, YYYY-MM-DD (inclusive).
fromDateNoOnly include payments dated ON OR AFTER this date, YYYY-MM-DD (inclusive).
invoiceIdNoFilter to payments applied to one specific invoice. Omit for every invoice.
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. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / invoiceId / pattern
      Added value: +"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12})$"
    • removedInput schema / properties / toDate / $ref
      Removed value: -"#/properties/fromDate"
    • addedInput schema / properties / toDate / pattern
      Added value: +"^\\d{4}-\\d{2}-\\d{2}$"
    • addedInput schema / properties / toDate / type
      Added value: +"string"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past readOnlyHint/openWorldHint: discloses the 100-per-page cap, the pageCount-may-exceed-returned caveat, the appliedFilters echo, the currency-of-linked-invoice trap, and that payments may be applied to credit notes/prepayments/overpayments rather than invoices. These are real behavioral traits an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Six sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the read-only assertion and sibling routing front-loaded. Dense but every clause (currency, invoice-application, pagination, appliedFilters) survives a 'does it earn its place' test; minor trim possible in the invoice-application sentence.

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, so the description must carry return-shape burden and does: page size, pageCount, appliedFilters echo, conditional invoiceId fields, and currency semantics. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond it: fromDate/toDate both inclusive, status filter is AUTHORISED vs DELETED, and invoiceId/invoiceNumber presence is conditional on payment application type. It does not restate the page/organisation semantics the schema already covers.

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?

States a specific verb (List) plus resource (payments recorded in Xero) and scope (current organisation), then explicitly contrasts with create_xero_payment. An agent can distinguish it from all 35 siblings without reading any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the write case elsewhere: 'to RECORD a new payment, use create_xero_payment instead.' Also gives the condition for filtering (status, invoice, date range), so when-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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

All Invio Xero MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources