QuickBooks Desktop MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

qb_journal_entry

Create balanced general journal entries with debit and credit lines, optional foreign currency, then preview and confirm before posting.

Instructions

General journal entry. lines: [{"kind": "debit"|"credit", "account", "amount", "memo", "entity"}]; debits must equal credits. With multicurrency, an entry may use one foreign currency (currency + exchange_rate = home-currency units per 1 unit) next to home-currency accounts; amounts are then in that foreign currency. ref_number max 11 characters. Two steps (preview + confirm_code).

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": {
      "txn_date": "<txn_date>",
      "lines": "<lines>"
    },
    "name": "qb_journal_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lines`	Yes
`run_id`	No
`currency`	No
`txn_date`	Yes
`ref_number`	No
`confirm_code`	No
`exchange_rate`	No
`expected_company_file`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a mandatory preview/confirm two-step, the debits-equals-credits invariant, and the single-foreign-currency constraint with exchange_rate defined as home-currency units per foreign unit. It does not say what the preview returns or how validation failures are surfaced, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Dense and front-loaded — the lines structure and the balance invariant come first, and every clause carries real information (multicurrency rule, ref_number length, two-step flow). The telegraphic style is slightly harder to parse but wastes no sentences.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essential accounting semantics but leaves two parameters (run_id, expected_company_file) and the mechanics of the preview/confirm handshake undocumented. It is minimal-but-workable rather than complete for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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 must carry the load, and it does well for the hardest parameters: it enumerates the sub-fields of the lines objects, defines exchange_rate's direction, and caps ref_number at 11 characters. It leaves run_id and expected_company_file entirely unexplained, which prevents a 5.

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?

Names the resource (general journal entry) and the core operation implied by the tool name, plus a precise breakdown of the lines array with kind/account/amount/memo/entity. It is distinguishable from siblings like qb_add_transaction or qb_deposit by being a balanced double-entry construct, though the description never explicitly says 'create/journalize'.

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?

The two-step preview + confirm_code flow implies when confirm_code should be supplied, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use a journal entry versus qb_add_transaction, qb_deposit, or qb_write_check. Usage is inferable from domain knowledge rather than stated.

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