QuickBooks Online MCP Server

get_class

Retrieve a QuickBooks Online class by ID to access its details for reporting, categorization, or accounting workflows.

Instructions

Retrieve a specific class from QuickBooks Online by ID.

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": "get_class"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. "Retrieve" correctly signals a non-mutating single-record read, and "specific ... by ID" implies an exact-match lookup, but it says nothing about what happens when the ID does not exist, whether permissions/scopes are required, or any error/empty-result behavior.

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 twelve-word sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded; nothing is redundant. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so conciseness is not the failure mode here.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials of what it fetches and how it is keyed. It stops short of describing not-found behavior or the returned shape, which an agent calling it would reasonably want.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but there is only one meaningful parameter and the schema already names it "id" with the description "Class ID" inside a required nested params object. The description's "by ID" confirms the parameter's purpose but adds no format, sourcing, or constraint details beyond that.

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 ("Retrieve a specific class") plus the lookup key ("by ID"), which distinguishes it in practice from search_classes or update_class. However, it never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred from naming conventions rather than stated.

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 to use this when the class ID is already known and search_classes when it is not. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server