QuickBooks Desktop MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

qb_find_transactions

Read-only

Find QuickBooks transactions within a date range, filtered by account, entity, or type, to verify entries before booking a bank line and prevent duplicates.

Instructions

All transactions in a date range (YYYY-MM-DD), optionally for one account or entity and of given types (e.g. ["Invoice", "ReceivePayment", "Deposit", "Check", "JournalEntry"]). One row per transaction: type, date, ref, entity, account, amount, currency. Use before booking a bank line to avoid booking it twice.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "date_from": "<date_from>",
      "date_to": "<date_to>"
    },
    "name": "qb_find_transactions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`entity`	No
`account`	No
`date_to`	Yes
`date_from`	Yes
`txn_types`	No
`max_results`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and the dedup-before-booking intent, but says nothing about result truncation, the max_results default of 500, or ordering — material for a read tool that can silently cap results.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with scope, then output shape, then the decision-driving use case. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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?

Complete for a read-only finder. The output schema exists so return values need no prose, and the remaining ambiguity is limited to whether entity/account take names or IDs and to the max_results cap.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and mostly does: it explains the date range and format, the optional single-account/entity narrowing, and gives concrete example values for txn_types. Only max_results is left completely undocumented, so one of six parameters is unaddressed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('All transactions in a date range') and even sketches the output row shape (type, date, ref, entity, account, amount, currency). It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like qb_query_transactions or qb_check_duplicate by name, so an agent must infer the split.

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?

One concrete usage trigger is given: 'Use before booking a bank line to avoid booking it twice.' That is real guidance, but there are no exclusion conditions and no named alternatives (qb_check_duplicate, qb_query_transactions), which overlap heavily with this tool's purpose.

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