lightbulb-mcp

by RPasquale

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

quickbooks_list_purchase_orders

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve purchase orders from QuickBooks to review outstanding orders and reconcile spending.

Instructions

Quickbooks connector operation list_purchase_orders (platform tool quickbooks.list_purchase_orders).

Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority.

Args: arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation. 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

Name	Required	Default
`effect`	Yes
`arguments`	No	{}
`project_id`	No
`project_ref`	No
`approval_ref`	No
`idempotency_key`	No
`connector_account_ref`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedv0.1.1Sep 7, 2026

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"
+]
```

First observedv0.1.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) provide basic behavioral expectations. The description adds little beyond generic parameter disclaimers like 'effect: Required and must be read; Spring verifies it,' which is not specific to this operation. It does not contradict the annotations, but it does not enrich them significantly.

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 description is concise and does not contain unnecessary fluff. It repeats the tool name and the parameter list, but it is not verbose or cluttered. It is straightforward, though it sacrifices substance for brevity.

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?

The description lacks essential context: what the tool returns (e.g., a list of purchase orders with fields), how to specify filters, potential side effects (though read-only), or typical use cases. The output schema is present but not described, so an agent cannot infer the structure of results. Given the tool's complexity and the presence of similar siblings, this is insufficient.

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?

The schema lists generic parameters (arguments, project_id, project_ref, etc.) with type definitions but zero descriptive content in the schema (0% coverage). The description only restates these with generic phrases like 'Authenticated Project UUID' and 'Exact project correlation reference,' which do not explain what arguments are expected for listing purchase orders. There is no mention of filters, pagination, or QuickBooks-specific inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states it is a Quickbooks connector operation to list purchase orders, which conveys the basic purpose. However, it relies heavily on the tool name and provides no specific detail about what data is returned or how it behaves. It is not as clear as it could be for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like quickbooks_list_purchases or quickbooks_list_bills. The sibling tools are listed but their relationships are not explained. An agent has no cue to choose this tool appropriately.

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

Deploy Server