QuickBooks Online MCP Server

delete-bill

Deletes a QuickBooks Online bill by ID and SyncToken, removing incorrect or outdated bills from the accounting records.

Instructions

Delete 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": "delete-bill"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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 mostly drops it. It conveys only that the operation removes a bill; it says nothing about irreversibility, permission requirements, whether QBO performs a soft or hard delete, or how a stale SyncToken failure manifests.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition, which is easy to scan. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification given how much behavior and parameter meaning is left unstated.

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 an irreversible mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested parameter object containing a concurrency token, the definition is far too thin. An agent could not reliably determine preconditions, failure handling, or retry semantics from it.

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 0% for a nested object whose required fields are Id and SyncToken, and the description explains neither. Critically, the SyncToken's role as an optimistic-concurrency token — and the need to fetch a fresh one via get-bill before retrying — is undocumented anywhere.

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 ('Delete a bill') plus the system ('QuickBooks Online'), so the agent knows exactly what entity is affected. It does not distinguish this tool from adjacent destructive siblings such as delete_invoice, delete-purchase, or delete_bill_payment, which share nearly identical descriptions.

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 destructive verb implies usage context, but the description never states when to delete versus void or update a bill, nor that the bill must first be read (get-bill) to obtain the required identifiers. No exclusions or alternatives are offered despite dozens of delete_* siblings.

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

Deploy Server