QuickBooks Online MCP Server

create-bill

Creates a vendor bill in QuickBooks Online with line items and vendor reference to record accounts payable for accounting.

Instructions

Create a bill in QuickBooks Online.

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": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "create-bill"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and provides almost none of it. It signals that this is a mutating creation in QuickBooks Online, but says nothing about auth/scopes, required reference lookups, whether the bill is immediately posted to the ledger, or what is returned on success.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words and no structural problems. However, brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing, which is penalized under contextual completeness.

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

Completeness1/5

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

This is a high-complexity mutation with nested objects, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema. The description omits required top-level fields, the DetailType/line-detail pairing rules, and the response shape, leaving an agent unable to call it correctly without trial and error.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single 'params' wrapper hides a deeply nested bill object with required 'Line' and 'VendorRef', per-line 'DetailType' discriminators, and AccountRef/ItemRef sub-objects. The description supplies no field meaning, required-field hints, or allowed DetailType values, so the agent must infer everything from the raw schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a bill') plus the target system ('QuickBooks Online'), so the agent knows exactly what operation it performs. It does not differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as create_bill_payment, create_invoice, or create_purchase.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says when a bill is the correct record versus an invoice, purchase, or bill payment, and no preconditions (vendor must exist, account/item references required) are mentioned. Usage is only implied by the name.

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

Deploy Server