QuickBooks Online MCP Server

search_customers

Find QuickBooks Online customers by filtering fields such as name, email, phone, balance, or active status, with sorting, limits, and pagination options.

Instructions

Search customers in QuickBooks Online that match given criteria.

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": "search_customers"
  }
}

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 burden, yet it discloses nothing about pagination (limit/offset/fetchAll), what happens when no criteria are provided, result caps, or the shape of returned records. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage and a nested params object, 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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise – nothing about the criteria mechanics or pagination is conveyed.

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?

Given a nested params object, an anyOf criteria union, enum operators, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-line description is far too thin for an agent to invoke the tool reliably. Key behaviors (fetchAll semantics, count-only mode, result limits) are entirely unaddressed.

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 reported at 0%, and the single sentence adds no meaning beyond 'criteria' – it does not explain fetchAll, count, limit/offset, or the advanced {field,value,operator} versus legacy {key,value} forms that the nested schema exposes. The description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 ('Search customers in QuickBooks Online') plus the notion of matching criteria, so an agent can tell this apart from create_customer/update_customer. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_customer (single-record fetch) or other search_* siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the alternative tools (get_customer for a known Id, report_customer_* for aggregates). 'Match given criteria' implies filtering but never states that criteria are required or how to choose between the two criteria forms.

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

Deploy Server