QuickBooks Online MCP Server

delete_attachable

Deletes an attachable from QuickBooks Online by ID and sync token, removing the file record while preventing concurrency conflicts.

Instructions

Delete an attachable from 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_attachable"
  }
}

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it only says a delete happens. It omits that the operation is destructive and likely unrecoverable, that the required sync_token is a concurrency guard that will fail on stale values, and what happens to file attachments or linked transactions.

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 no filler and the resource front-loaded, so it is efficient. However, brevity here reflects under-specification rather than discipline — the single sentence leaves out information an agent needs before performing an irreversible delete.

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 mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested parameter object requiring a concurrency token, the definition is too thin. It should at minimum disclose irreversibility, required permissions, and sync-token behavior.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds nothing about the single 'params' object. The nested fields do carry short schema descriptions ('Attachable ID', 'Sync token for concurrency'), but the description does not explain why the sync token must be current or how to obtain it, so it adds no meaning beyond the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Delete an attachable') and scopes it to QuickBooks Online, which distinguishes it from sibling operations like create_attachable, get_attachable, and update_attachable. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or clarifying what an 'attachable' entity is, so it lands just below the top band.

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 tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites such as required permissions or entity state, and no warning that deletion in QuickBooks Online is generally irreversible. 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