Skip to main content
Glama
QuickBooks Desktop MCP

QuickBooks Desktop MCP

by Compolaga

qb_receive_payment

Records a customer payment and applies it to open invoices, validating for wrong customer, already-paid, or over-applied invoices. Preview the entry, then confirm to post it to QuickBooks.

Instructions

Records a customer payment and applies it to open invoices (Customers > Receive Payments). amount is in the customer's currency. apply_to: [{"invoice_ref": "INV-001", "amount": ...} or {"txn_id": ..., "amount"}]; the same invoice listed twice is applied once with the summed amount. deposit_to_account: bank account or Undeposited Funds (QuickBooks requires an account in the customer's currency or the home currency). exchange_rate: home-currency units per 1 unit of the customer's currency. Refuses invoices of another customer, already paid, or over-applied. 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": {
      "customer": "<customer>",
      "txn_date": "<txn_date>",
      "amount": "<amount>",
      "apply_to": "<apply_to>"
    },
    "name": "qb_receive_payment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
memoNo
amountYes
run_idNo
apply_toYes
currencyNo
customerYes
txn_dateYes
ar_accountNo
ref_numberNo
confirm_codeNo
exchange_rateNo
payment_methodNo
deposit_to_accountNo
expected_company_fileNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world mutation, so the description's added value is in the operational constraints it discloses: amount is in the customer's currency, duplicate invoice entries are summed and applied once, deposit accounts must match the customer or home currency, exchange rate direction is defined, and the flow requires two steps (preview then confirm_code). That is substantive behavior beyond the annotations.

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?

Information is front-loaded — purpose and required payment semantics first, then optional-parameter rules, then refusal conditions and the two-step confirmation flow. The telegraphic semicolon style packs significant detail with no wasted sentences.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 14-parameter mutation with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition covers the critical behavioral risks (currency mismatch, duplicate applications, invalid invoices, confirmation step). It does not explain what the preview step returns or clarify several auxiliary parameters, which keeps it short of fully complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% across 14 parameters, so the description carries the full burden; it does well on the hardest ones (apply_to structure and duplicate handling, deposit_to_account currency constraint, exchange_rate direction, confirm_code as the second step). However, it leaves customer identity format, txn_date format, and optional params such as memo, currency, ar_account, ref_number, payment_method, run_id, and expected_company_file unexplained, so it only partially compensates.

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 and resource — 'Records a customer payment and applies it to open invoices' — and anchors it to the QuickBooks menu path (Customers > Receive Payments). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like qb_create_invoice and qb_deposit without opening their schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides clear usage context plus explicit exclusion conditions: invoices belonging to another customer, already paid, or over-applied are refused. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative (e.g., use qb_deposit for unapplied payments), so it is strong but not a complete when/when-not routing guide.

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