QuickBooks Online MCP Server

create_invoice

Creates a QuickBooks Online invoice from customer and line item details, including dates, tax codes, billing email, and optional linked transactions.

Instructions

Create an invoice 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_invoice"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

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, yet it says nothing about side effects (an invoice becomes a posted receivable), required setup, or what happens when customer_ref or item refs are invalid. One sentence of 'create' is all the agent gets for a mutation with real accounting consequences.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is certainly concise, but it is under-specified rather than tight. Shortness here is a symptom of missing content, not efficiency.

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

Completeness2/5

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

This is a complex tool with a nested params object, ten sub-fields, required customer and line-item references, no annotations, and no output schema. A one-line description is nowhere near sufficient to prepare an agent to construct a valid payload or understand the result.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is reported as 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the nested fields. Several leaf fields do have short schema descriptions (bill_email, service_date, tax_code_ref, customer_memo, sales_term_ref, global_tax_calculation), but core fields like customer_ref, line_items, txn_date, doc_number, and linked_txn are undocumented in both places.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create an invoice') and names the target system ('QuickBooks Online'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not differentiate from adjacent create tools such as create_estimate, create_sales_receipt, or create_credit_memo, which is why it stops at 4 rather than 5.

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 guidance on when to use this versus create_estimate, create_sales_receipt, or create_credit_memo, and no statement of prerequisites such as needing an existing customer or item to reference. The agent must infer everything from the tool name.

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

Deploy Server