Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
QuickBooks Online MCP Server

QuickBooks Online MCP Server

by NightSquawk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_account

Modify an existing chart-of-accounts entry in QuickBooks Online to correct account details or update classifications.

Instructions

Update an existing chart‑of‑accounts entry in Quickbooks.

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": "update_account"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
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 for a mutation tool. It does not say whether changes are partial or overwrite existing fields, whether the call is reversible, what errors occur for an unknown account_id, or what the response contains — all material for a write operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler — the verb and resource appear immediately. It is terse rather than padded, though the terseness is the source of the gaps scored elsewhere.

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 write tool with no annotations, no output schema, an undocumented nested patch object, and 0% schema coverage, the definition is far too thin. An agent would have to guess which fields are patchable and how the update behaves.

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 schema hides everything behind a single 'params' object containing a free-form 'patch' with no declared properties. The description never mentions account_id or explains what keys the patch accepts, so it adds almost no meaning beyond the (already opaque) 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 names a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('chart-of-accounts entry') and adds the QuickBooks domain, so the agent can distinguish it from create_account, get_account, and search_accounts by verb alone. It stops short of explicitly routing to those siblings, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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 only usage cue is the word 'existing', which implies the entry must already exist. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over create_account/get_account, no prerequisites such as permissions or account state, and no note about whether the patch is partial or full-replace.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools