QuickBooks Online MCP Server

create_payment

Records a customer payment in QuickBooks Online, applies funds to linked invoices, and deposits the amount to a specified account.

Instructions

Create a payment (receive money from customer) 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_payment"
  }
}

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 burden, yet it only states that this creates a payment. It does not disclose that customer_ref and total_amt are mandatory, that line items must be linked to existing transactions, or that currency_ref becomes required when multicurrency is enabled. The money-direction hint is the only behavioral context added.

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 wasted words, but for an 11-field financial mutation it is undersized rather than efficiently concise. Brevity here comes at the cost of the details an agent needs.

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?

For a create operation with nested line-item objects, required fields, and no annotations or output schema, the description should explain at minimum the required inputs and the multicurrency condition. It leaves those gaps entirely to the schema, which is only partially self-documenting at the top level.

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 at 0% and the description contributes nothing about any parameter, leaving all meaning to the nested property descriptions in the schema. Nothing is said about the required params, the line/linked_txn structure, or the currency/exchange-rate pairing.

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 ("Create a payment") and the parenthetical "receive money from customer" clarifies the money-in direction, which distinguishes it from create_bill_payment and create_deposit. It does not, however, explicitly name those siblings or explain how a payment differs from a sales receipt.

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 at all: nothing says when to create a payment versus a sales receipt, a deposit, or a bill payment, nor any prerequisite such as the customer or invoice needing to exist. The agent must infer usage purely 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