Skip to main content
Glama
RPasquale

lightbulb-mcp

by RPasquale
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

quickbooks_list_bills

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch vendor bills from QuickBooks, using status and date filters to support accounts payable analysis.

Instructions

List QuickBooks vendor bills for AP analysis.

Args: status: Optional bill status filter. from_date: Start date (YYYY-MM-DD). to_date: End date (YYYY-MM-DD). max_results: Maximum number of bills to return. project_id: Authenticated Project UUID. project_ref: Exact project correlation reference. connector_account_ref: Project-bound connector account alias. idempotency_key: Stable business-action identity. effect: Required and must be read; Spring verifies it. approval_ref: Approved platform task UUID when resuming a write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
effectYes
statusNo
to_dateNo
from_dateNo
project_idNo
max_resultsNo
project_refNo
approval_refNo
idempotency_keyNo
connector_account_refNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / approval_ref
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Approval Ref"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / connector_account_ref
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Connector Account Ref"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / effect
      Added value: +{
+  "const": "read",
+  "title": "Effect",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Idempotency Key"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_id
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Project Id"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_ref
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Project Ref"
+}
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "effect"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'effect: Required and must be read; Spring verifies it,' which mostly restates the schema constraint. The note about approval_ref being for 'resuming a write' is confusing for a read-only tool and adds no useful behavioral context.

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?

The one-sentence purpose is front-loaded and the Args block is scannable, with each parameter on its own line. There is no filler prose, though the list is lengthy due to platform-injected parameters.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value documentation is not required, and the parameter list is mostly documented. However, the description omits usage guidance such as when to choose this over other bill tools, what valid status values are, and why approval_ref appears on a read-only operation. These gaps leave the agent to infer important context.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by enumerating all 10 parameters with one-line meanings. It adds useful detail like date format (YYYY-MM-DD), max_results as a limiter, and contextual labels such as 'Authenticated Project UUID' and 'Project-bound connector account alias.' Some definitions remain terse but the description meaningfully exceeds the raw 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List QuickBooks vendor bills for AP analysis.' It clearly identifies the tool as a read operation for vendor bills but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like quickbooks_create_bill or quickbooks_pay_bill.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as quickbooks_create_bill, quickbooks_pay_bill, or billcom_list_bills. The 'for AP analysis' phrase gives minimal context but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.

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