QuickBooks Online MCP Server

delete-vendor

Deletes a vendor from QuickBooks Online using the vendor ID and SyncToken to remove the correct record.

Instructions

Delete a vendor 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-vendor"
  }
}

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 only says 'Delete'. It does not disclose irreversibility, permission requirements, what happens to a vendor with attached bills, or whether QuickBooks performs a soft delete (marking inactive). For a destructive mutation this is a substantial gap.

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 sentence with zero filler, so it is certainly concise, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than discipline. There is no front-loaded constraint or caveat to anchor behavior.

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 destructive, nested-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition leaves out required fields, failure modes, and consequences. An agent could not call this safely or correctly without inspecting the raw schema.

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% and the single nested object requires both Id and SyncToken, a QuickBooks concurrency token whose purpose is non-obvious to an agent. The description says nothing about these fields, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (delete) and resource (vendor) plus the system context (QuickBooks Online), so an agent can immediately distinguish it from create-vendor, update-vendor, and get-vendor. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the other delete-* siblings such as delete_customer, but the resource noun does that work implicitly.

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 delete versus when to deactivate or update a vendor, no prerequisites (e.g. vendor must have no linked transactions), and no pointer to a sibling alternative. The agent must infer all of this from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server