QuickBooks Online MCP Server

delete_journal_entry

Delete a journal entry in QuickBooks Online by marking it inactive to correct accounting records while preserving historical data.

Instructions

Delete (make inactive) a journal entry 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_journal_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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. It does add one genuinely valuable disclosure: the parenthetical "make inactive" reveals this is a soft delete rather than a hard removal, which an agent could not infer from the name. However it omits permissions required, whether the entry remains visible to search/reports afterwards, and what errors occur for posted entries, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero padding. The only inefficiency is that the brevity comes at the cost of the information the agent actually needs.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Incorrect for a destructive mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented nested parameter object. An agent still lacks the identifier format, permission requirements, and failure modes, so the definition is not sufficient to call it correctly with confidence.

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 parameter is named "idOrEntity" with an empty schema (no type, no description), so the agent cannot tell whether to pass a string ID or a full entity object. The description does nothing to disambiguate this, which is the main thing it needed to compensate for.

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 plus resource ("Delete ... a journal entry") and scopes it to QuickBooks Online, so an agent can separate it from update_journal_entry and search_journal_entries within the large sibling set. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation comes from the verb alone.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus update_journal_entry or when a deletion is appropriate (e.g., only unposted entries). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no statement about what happens if the entry is referenced by other transactions.

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

Deploy Server