QuickBooks Online MCP Server

get_journal_entry

Retrieves a QuickBooks Online journal entry by ID so you can review, reconcile, or audit specific accounting records.

Instructions

Get a journal entry by Id 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": "get_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

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 largely fails to: it does not say whether this is read-only (only "Get" implies it), what happens when the Id does not exist, whether permissions or a connected QuickBooks company are required, or whether line items/splits are included in the response.

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 tight sentence with the key constraint front-loaded and no wasted wording. It errs on the side of under-specification rather than verbosity, but structurally it is clean.

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 read-by-id tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum cover error behavior on missing Ids, read-only nature, and what shape of record comes back. None of that is present, leaving the agent to guess at failure modes.

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 the single `id` string parameter. The description only repeats the parameter name ("by Id") and adds no format, type, or provenance detail beyond clarifying that it is the journal entry's identifier rather than a company or account Id.

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 ("Get a journal entry by Id"), so an agent immediately knows this is a single-record fetch rather than a list or mutation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many sibling readers (search_journal_entries, get_purchase, get_bill, etc.) other than by the resource name.

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?

"by Id" implies the precondition that the caller must already hold a journal entry identifier, which is useful implied usage guidance. There is no explicit statement about when to prefer search_journal_entries instead, nor any exclusion or prerequisite about where the Id comes from.

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

Deploy Server